Article: Why Kutter Crawford Isn't The Starter The Red Sox Need

[Daniel Fox]

Kutter Crawford was a serviceable innings-eating for the 2024 Boston Red Sox. Yet after three years of lacking a true, front-line starting pitcher, the Red Sox should aim higher than yet another back-end arm. 

First, we should commend Kutter Crawford for what he did this season. With Lucas Giolito going down, the Red Sox needed someone to take the ball every fifth day and pitch league-average innings. Crawford did exactly that. He made 33 starts this season, tied for the most in baseball, and pitched 183 2/3 league-average innings. Kudos to him for that.

The issue, however, is that Giolito will be back next season, and no rotation needs two Lucas Giolitos. By nearly every measure, Crawford was the epitome of average. His fastball velocity is pedestrian. His strikeout rate is in the 51st percentile. His walk rate is in the 68th percentile. Crawford is a middle-of-the-road starter, which is fine if you try to be a middle-of-the-road team. But after three years of .500 baseball, it’s time for the Red Sox to aim higher. 

Oh wait, I almost forgot. There is one thing that Crawford is definitely not league average at doing. If you have watched him at all this season, you know that he loves giving up home runs. Nobody served up more round trippers than Crawford, who has watched his opponents circle the bases a whopping 34 times. Of course, you don’t allow a league-leading amount of home runs by accident. There are a myriad of reasons for Crawford’s homer-happy ways, from poor command to a high fly-ball rate to a fastball and cutter that lack movement. Because Crawford is so average in many other aspects of pitching, it’s hard to see a way for him to offset his home-run tendencies. 

The pattern that played out this season is one that I fear will repeat for years. When the weather was cool and the ball wasn’t carrying, Crawford was one of the best pitchers in baseball. Over his first ten starts through May 18, Crawford had a 2.17 ERA and allowed only three home runs over 58 innings. Over his final 23 starts, however, Crawford has a 5.37 ERA and has allowed 30 home runs over 113.2 innings. The amazing thing is that Crawford had a lower batting average against in that second span but the frequent hard contact he was allowing left the ballpark rather than falling for singles and doubles. In a different, more spacious ballpark, maybe there is a chance that Crawford could be at least a mid-rotation starter. But as long as the Red Sox play in Fenway Park, which I heard they will be doing next year, Crawford will struggle to be more than league average. 

That brings us to where he fits into next year’s rotation. In my mind, the Red Sox have three starters locked into next year’s rotation:

Tanner Houck doesn’t quite have the strikeout rate of a front-line starter but proved this year he is a more-than-capable number three.

Brayan Bello, whose contract extension necessitates that he be given every chance to be a starter, showed this season that he is far too inconsistent to be counted on as anything more than a number four.

Lucas Giolito almost certainly will pick up his player option but cannot be counted on to be any more than a back-end starter in his first year after elbow surgery.

If you are keeping track at home, that means that the last three spots of the rotation are filled out. If the Red Sox are serious about competing in 2025, they cannot have Crawford take up a fourth. This is not a team that is one established starter away from competing. In a perfect world, they would add one big-name free agent and one controllable starter through a trade. Locking Crawford into a rotation spot would prevent at least one of those from becoming a possibility.

This leaves two options as to what to do. The first is to move Crawford to the bullpen, a place where Crawford succeeded in 2023, and that allows his stuff to play up. The issue with that, however, is that the Red Sox bullpen is already crowded, and I don’t think Crawford would take too kindly to being moved to a relief role after making 33 starts in 2024.

So here’s what I propose. Use Crawford as a package for a front-line starter. Send him to a big West Coast ballpark where the ball doesn’t travel. Crawford has proven that he can be an effective big-league starter, but the Red Sox aren’t looking for another pitcher who is just “serviceable.” The Red Sox need an ace, and attaching Crawford to an intriguing prospect package may be the way to do it. 

View full article

[Bellhorn04]

Well done.  I find little to disagree with, with the possible exception that maybe Houck pitched like a #2 this year based on his WAR at least.  But I think it's spot on about Crawford.  

[moonslav59]

Very well stated. I've always been for building up a rotation from the top. Trying to add a 3/4 to bump out your 5 is no way to win. I've also been saying we need at least 2 solid SP'ers, but I doubt it happens.

I'd be okay with Houck as the 2, but Bello and Gio should be 4-5 and Crawford in the pen. That means, at worst, we need a solid #1 and #3.

Again, I doubt we add 2 SP'ers, unless one is like a Criswell addition, and if we do add one, it will be a #3, not a #1.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Cutter Crawford is the perfect player for the current Red Sox: an employee who doesn't make a lot of money for an employer who makes a lot of money and saves a lot of money.

Crawford takes a regular turn on the mound so Boston can field a team and sell tickets. What could be better for a team consumed with concessions?

(such concessions include, but are not limited to, the following: uniformed management's concessions using a roster that can't qualify for the postseason; fan's concessions expecting a front office to sufficiently upgrade the roster; and ownership's concessions at Fenway that remain overpriced, taste like crap and sell like hot takes).

 

[mvp 78]

If his HR/9 dipped back to 2023 levels, he'd go from a 5th starter to a 3rd starter again. For a guy that can throw 180 innings at cheap dollars, I don't know if I'm quick to move on from him. I think I'm more confident in what he an do for me than what Bello can (worse '24 ERA+, WHIP than Kutter).

[notin]

I do disagree with this.

Crawford isn’t a guy to headline your rotation, but innings eaters are more valuable than they get credit for.  He was a 2.0 bWAR pitcher, which no one rejoices over, but it’s absolutely serviceable.

Part of his value comes from reduced emphasis on the rotation.  If you look at the teams in the both LDS, you see some teams with rotations the kindest among us might call “questionable.”  Detroit, for example,  does have AL triple crown winner Tarik Skubal, but who else? The Mets have a rotation with people named Manaea, Quintana, Peterson, Severino, and ?? Megill, I guess?  It’s a rotation that if someone said in March would be in the LDS, they’d be accused of taking LSD.  
 

The Sox need a starter, but they need the bullpen more.  Crawford isn’t exciting, but replacing him will just create issues that don’t need to be created…

[mvp 78]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

I do disagree with this.

Crawford isn’t a guy to headline your rotation, but innings eaters are more valuable than they get credit for.  He was a 2.0 bWAR pitcher, which no one rejoices over, but it’s absolutely serviceable.

Part of his value comes from reduced emphasis on the rotation.  If you look at the teams in the both LDS, you see some teams with rotations the kindest among us might call “questionable.”  Detroit, for example,  does have AL triple crown winner Tarik Skubal, but who else? The Mets have a rotation with people named Manaea, Quintana, Peterson, Severino, and ?? Megill, I guess?  It’s a rotation that if someone said in March would be in the LDS, they’d be accused of taking LSD.  
 

The Sox need a starter, but they need the bullpen more.  Crawford isn’t exciting, but replacing him will just create issues that don’t need to be created…

The Sox need a high end starter first and foremost. I don't think moving Kutter fixes the issue as it would just create more of a drain on the bullpen due to all the innings he throws. I'd either sign a FA or trade prospects and an offensive player to get a starter that is as good as Houck or better or has the potential to be. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

I do disagree with this.

Crawford isn’t a guy to headline your rotation, but innings eaters are more valuable than they get credit for.  He was a 2.0 bWAR pitcher, which no one rejoices over, but it’s absolutely serviceable.

Part of his value comes from reduced emphasis on the rotation.  If you look at the teams in the both LDS, you see some teams with rotations the kindest among us might call “questionable.”  Detroit, for example,  does have AL triple crown winner Tarik Skubal, but who else? The Mets have a rotation with people named Manaea, Quintana, Peterson, Severino, and ?? Megill, I guess?  It’s a rotation that if someone said in March would be in the LDS, they’d be accused of taking LSD.  
 

The Sox need a starter, but they need the bullpen more.  Crawford isn’t exciting, but replacing him will just create issues that don’t need to be created…

Let's just get right down to it: in 2024, no pitcher in the majors gave up more home runs or lost more games than Cutter Crawford. But no one started more games, either.

If a starting pitcher makes the most big league starts, then he's a big league starter.

[notin]

6 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Let's just get right down to it: in 2024, no pitcher in the majors gave up more home runs or lost more games than Cutter Crawford. But no one started more games, either.

If a starting pitcher makes the most big league starts, then he's a big league starter.

As the best color commentator in the history of broadcasting, a man they call “Steve Stone,” once said - “don’t look at home runs.  Look at home runs with men on base.”

Crawford gave up 34 home runs, but only 10 with men on base…

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Let's just get right down to it: in 2024, no pitcher in the majors gave up more home runs or lost more games than Cutter Crawford. But no one started more games, either.

If a starting pitcher makes the most big league starts, then he's a big league starter.

Only 13 pitchers had more innings than Kutter last year. 2 of them had lower fWAR (Berrios, Irvin). Kutter's HR/9 was pretty grim, but it was never this bad before. There's no reason to believe it won't go back to how it was prior to 2024. 35% of his HR's came in a 3 game period right after the ASB. After that, his HR/9 went back to his career norm as it was prior to that. 

[moonslav59]

25 minutes ago, notin said:

I do disagree with this.

Crawford isn’t a guy to headline your rotation, but innings eaters are more valuable than they get credit for.  He was a 2.0 bWAR pitcher, which no one rejoices over, but it’s absolutely serviceable.

Part of his value comes from reduced emphasis on the rotation.  If you look at the teams in the both LDS, you see some teams with rotations the kindest among us might call “questionable.”  Detroit, for example,  does have AL triple crown winner Tarik Skubal, but who else? The Mets have a rotation with people named Manaea, Quintana, Peterson, Severino, and ?? Megill, I guess?  It’s a rotation that if someone said in March would be in the LDS, they’d be accused of taking LSD.  
 

The Sox need a starter, but they need the bullpen more.  Crawford isn’t exciting, but replacing him will just create issues that don’t need to be created…

Adding a starter might push Crawford to the pen, as a long man. That would help the pen, as well, right?

[notin]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Adding a starter might push Crawford to the pen, as a long man. That would help the pen, as well, right?

Having Crawford pitch 60-80 IP out of the bullpen isn’t as useful as having him pitch 180 out of the rotation.

 

The home run thing is overblown. 12 of his 34 home runs came in 3 starts in late July/early August.  He only allowed 22 in the remaining 30 starts…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Adding a starter might push Crawford to the pen, as a long man. That would help the pen, as well, right?

If you were a CBO who knew there was no way you'd be allowed to add three starting pitchers to your rotation (because relying on Giolito to come back -- fulltime, healthy-without-setbacks, and effective -- is like waiting on Paxton/Sale/Fullmer/Ponce de Leon)... would you really rebuild by demoting one of your three inning-eaters?

[mvp 78]

8 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Adding a starter might push Crawford to the pen, as a long man. That would help the pen, as well, right?

Bello to the pen. He can't pitch 5 innings anyway.

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Only 13 pitchers had more innings than Kutter last year. 2 of them had lower fWAR (Berrios, Irvin). Kutter's HR/9 was pretty grim, but it was never this bad before. There's no reason to believe it won't go back to how it was prior to 2024. 35% of his HR's came in a 3 game period right after the ASB. After that, his HR/9 went back to his career norm as it was prior to that. 

Great info. Thanks.

fWAR 2023-2024 (xFIP)

5.1 Houck (3.76- 5th best)

4.3 Crawford (4.34)

3.9 Pivetta (3.52 3rd best)

3.6 Bello (3.94)

2.5 Jansen (4.30)

2.4 Martin (2.77 best)

2.1 Sale (3.72)

1.5 Slaten (2.90- 2nd best)

1.3 Paxton (4.00)

1.2 Whitlock (3.76 -6th best)

1.1 Criswell (4.43)

1.0 Winckowski (4.01)

SP ERA-

87 Houck

93 Pivetta (Soon to be gone)

95 Sale (GONE)

96 Criswell

97 Crawford

99 Paxton (GONE)

100 Bello & Whitlock (to pen?)

155 Kluber (gone)

RP ERA- (50+ IP)

50 Martin (to be gone)

69 Slaten

73 Weissert

79 Jansen (to be gone)

80 Wink

83 Bernardino

92 Kelly

 

[moonslav59]

7 minutes ago, notin said:

Having Crawford pitch 60-80 IP out of the bullpen isn’t as useful as having him pitch 180 out of the rotation.

 

The home run thing is overblown. 12 of his 34 home runs came in 3 starts in late July/early August.  He only allowed 22 in the remaining 30 starts…

No, but it's more useful than 60-80 from Chase Anderson and Mitch Keller. (Also, maybe it could be 80-100 IP.)

The idea is we replace him with someone who goes 180, as well, but with 17 HRs allowed, not 34. (Also, Gio replaces Pivetta, so maybe a new SP'er replace Fitts/Criswell, not Crawford.)

1. ____

2. Houck

3. Bello

4. Gio

5. Crawford

[mvp 78]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

No, but it's more useful than 60-80 from Chase Anderson and Mitch Keller. (Also, maybe it could be 80-100 IP.)

The idea is we replace him with someone who goes 180, as well, but with 17 HRs allowed, not 34. (Also, Gio replaces Pivetta, so maybe a new SP'er replace Fitts/Criswell, not Crawford.)

1. ____

2. Houck

3. Bello

4. Gio

5. Crawford

Next year, it would be Whitlock, Fitts or someone else. It was on Breslow for not finding a better bulk innings guy. However, it's not like Anderson was coming in and pitching in games that weren't generally out of hand already. For the most part, he was a mop up guy. 

[mvp 78]

Keller had an index leverage of 0.30 for the Sox Chase Anderson had an index leverage of 0.27 for the Sox. The only pitchers lower were Wingeter, Reyes and Dom Smith. Their innings were virtually meaningless.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Next year, it would be Whitlock, Fitts or someone else. It was on Breslow for not finding a better bulk innings guy. However, it's not like Anderson was coming in and pitching in games that weren't generally out of hand already. For the most part, he was a mop up guy. 

True: Anderson only had 9 PAs against in high leverage.

Bernardino had 79 (5th most,) but he was doing very well for the first half of '24.

These could be replaced by IP from Whitlock or someone better:

75 Kelly (7th most)

69 Weissert (8th)

60 Wink (11th)

30 Booser, 18 Campbell, 11 Joely, 11 Horn

14 other scrubs combined

This is almost 250 PAs we can improve on with more from Whitlock, Slaten, hendriks and Fulmer, but maybe a demoted SP'er, too.

 

[notin]

39 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

No, but it's more useful than 60-80 from Chase Anderson and Mitch Keller. (Also, maybe it could be 80-100 IP.)

The idea is we replace him with someone who goes 180, as well, but with 17 HRs allowed, not 34. (Also, Gio replaces Pivetta, so maybe a new SP'er replace Fitts/Criswell, not Crawford.)

1. ____

2. Houck

3. Bello

4. Gio

5. Crawford

Brad Keller, right?  Not Mitch…

[Nick]

With Pivetta gone, I would be reluctant to trade away a starter that pitched 180 innings.

He is not expensive as a first year arbitration guy. Certainly cheaper than Pivetta's $7.5 M.

Just keep him as an insurance.

Houck, Giolito, Kutter, Bello, Fitts, Criswell and Whitlock (yes, him).

Just add Burnes at the top and work on rebuilding the pen.

[mvp 78]

12 minutes ago, notin said:

Brad Keller, right?  Not Mitch…

If the 2024 Sox had Mitch Keller, do they make the Post Season? A lot of people wanted him last offseason. 

[notin]

2 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

If the 2024 Sox had Mitch Keller, do they make the Post Season? A lot of people wanted him last offseason. 

Depends on how they got him. 
 

But if they acquired him without touching the MLB roster, I think so.   He fills a MASSIVE void in the rotation…

[moonslav59]

31 minutes ago, notin said:

Brad Keller, right?  Not Mitch…

Yup. My bad.

[Maxbialystock]

2 hours ago, notin said:

I do disagree with this.

Crawford isn’t a guy to headline your rotation, but innings eaters are more valuable than they get credit for.  He was a 2.0 bWAR pitcher, which no one rejoices over, but it’s absolutely serviceable.

Part of his value comes from reduced emphasis on the rotation.  If you look at the teams in the both LDS, you see some teams with rotations the kindest among us might call “questionable.”  Detroit, for example,  does have AL triple crown winner Tarik Skubal, but who else? The Mets have a rotation with people named Manaea, Quintana, Peterson, Severino, and ?? Megill, I guess?  It’s a rotation that if someone said in March would be in the LDS, they’d be accused of taking LSD.  
 

The Sox need a starter, but they need the bullpen more.  Crawford isn’t exciting, but replacing him will just create issues that don’t need to be created…

Well said.  The OP does an excellent job of describing Crawford's faults. 

On the other hand,  Almost every Sox team in the John Henry era had a starter who ate innings (183.2)  and had a so-so ERA (4.36).  In the fantastic 2018 season, Rick Porcello pitched 191.1 innings with an ERA of 4.28--and was paid $21M to do so.  

 

[moonslav59]

Porcello was a modern day rarity. He pitched 170 IP at age 20, 163 IP at age 21 then never under 170 for the next 9 years.

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Porcello was a modern day rarity. He pitched 170 IP at age 20, 163 IP at age 21 then never under 170 for the next 9 years.

I was surprised Porcello never got signed by anyone after 2020.  

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

I was surprised Porcello never got signed by anyone after 2020.  

He had really declined, but yes, me too.

I don't think he ever said, "I retire."