Article: BREAKING: Red Sox Sign Walker Buehler To One-Year Contract

[Old Red]

29 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I've seen how Bello has handled Boston since he was called up 71 games ago. The only thing that he does more than average is walk batters. 

Bello is still Big Baby Bello, so if he can get over that he’d probably be better.

[Old Red]

37 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Houck was awesome over his first 3 seasons with the Sox, despite missing some time in 2021 and 2022. His only bas year was 2023.

Injuries are a concern with him, but I'm encouraged by his full 2024 season as a starter.

2020-2022: 150 ERA+, 3.02 ERA/2.95 FIP (His 69 ERA- ranked 30th out of 234 pitchers with 140+ IP.)

He's been hurt, but he's only had one bad year.

I like Bello, a lot, but he has yet to prove he can come close to what Houck had already done in all but one season.

Crochet has major questions about his ability to pitch 150+ IP for the next 2 years, let alone 170 or 180. No doubt, that is a concern, but when you look at what our SP'ers have done, especially most recently, it seems totally logical to slot Crochet and Houck 1-2, knowing full well, MLB is fluid. 

Bello could be poised for a great year, or he could continue to decline, as he did in 2024.

Buehler is the big wild card, in terms of range of projected 2025 production.

Gio has not done much in 3 years. I can see slotting him 5th or even 6th.

I wouldn’t call Houck awesome his first three years. He bounced around some between starting, and relieving, which probably didn’t help, and had some consistency problems, and couldn’t get over that 5th inning wall. A few injuries didn’t help either. Last year he was healthy, pretty much consistent, and upped his innings load. Can he build on that, and get better time will tell.

[mvp 78]

21 minutes ago, Old Red said:

I wouldn’t call Houck awesome his first three years. He bounced around some between starting, and relieving, which probably didn’t help, and had some consistency problems, and couldn’t get over that 5th inning wall. A few injuries didn’t help either. Last year he was healthy, pretty much consistent, and upped his innings load. Can he build on that, and get better time will tell.

Bello 2024: 

3rd time through the order: 6.63 ERA, 5.02 FIP, 1.50 WHIP

5th Inning: 5.06 ERA, 715 OPS

6th Inning: 7.24 ERA, 894 OPS

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Bello 2024: 

3rd time through the order: 6.63 ERA, 5.02 FIP, 1.50 WHIP

5th Inning: 5.06 ERA, 715 OPS

6th Inning: 7.24 ERA, 894 OPS

Houck was "awesome" from 2020-2022. For a young RP/SP who struggled in the 5th IP as his only weak point, other than injuries, he was damn good.

His history blows Bello's away. With him, it's all about staying healthy and proving he can go 175+ IP back-to-back. Bello has to prove he can even pitch 75% as well as Houck does. Bello has also never pitched 178 IP, like Houck has. His tops is 162.

Counting the minors:

Bello: 118 IP in 2019, 95 in '21, 96 in '22, 153 in '23 (minors+ majors), 162 in '23 (AAA+MLB) and 165 in '24 (AA+MLB)

Houck: 300 IP in 3 college seasons ('15-'17), then 22, 119, 108, 90 in '21 (AAA+MLB,) 60 in '22 (almost all as RP,) 115 in '23 (AAA+MLB) and 179 in '24

I don't see an IP advantage to Bello.

[mvp 78]

Houck always had that wipeout slider. He just needed that third pitch to make him a real deal starter. Working with Bailey, he figured that 3rd pitch out. I don't know why I need to sit back and watch another 162 games to decide if Houck is still better than Bello. I saw enough last year to determine that Houck's ceiling far surpasses anything that Bello could ever do even IF Houck never replicates 2024 again. 

[Old Red]

22 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Bello 2024: 

3rd time through the order: 6.63 ERA, 5.02 FIP, 1.50 WHIP

5th Inning: 5.06 ERA, 715 OPS

6th Inning: 7.24 ERA, 894 OPS

I don’t know why you are focusing on Bello so much. All I said was he’s not the 5-6 starter on a team with so many ifs, ands, and buts. Bue most likely will see 2021 stats again. Cro is untested not only in innings, but pitching in Boston. Gio was last seen as a batting practice/HR Derby pitcher. I said he’s still Big Baby Bello, and if he gets rid of that he may get better, and who knows maybe the best starter on the team this year. If not then No big deal.

[Old Red]

11 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Houck always had that wipeout slider. He just needed that third pitch to make him a real deal starter. Working with Bailey, he figured that 3rd pitch out. I don't know why I need to sit back and watch another 162 games to decide if Houck is still better than Bello. I saw enough last year to determine that Houck's ceiling far surpasses anything that Bello could ever do even IF Houck never replicates 2024 again. 

Good for Houck, and good for the Sox if he can replicate 2024, and may even get better, but then again he may not. I personally don’t give a rat’s a** who turns out to be the better pitcher in the long run.

[moonslav59]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Houck always had that wipeout slider. He just needed that third pitch to make him a real deal starter. Working with Bailey, he figured that 3rd pitch out. I don't know why I need to sit back and watch another 162 games to decide if Houck is still better than Bello. I saw enough last year to determine that Houck's ceiling far surpasses anything that Bello could ever do even IF Houck never replicates 2024 again. 

Even if you take away 2024, his history was better, although doubts about 150+ IP were present.

[Old Red]

13 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Even if you take away 2024, his history was better, although doubts about 150+ IP were present.

Bello is 25, and Houck is 28. Bello has some time to catch up, and get better. Whether he does get better is another question.

[moonslav59]

31 minutes ago, Old Red said:

Bello is 25, and Houck is 28. Bello has some time to catch up, and get better. Whether he does get better is another question.

So, do you or do you not give a "rats ass" about who does better?

I really like Bello and place him as our 3 or 4 slot SP'er, as of now. I think he can and will get better as he matures. 

You started this whole thing by saying Bello may end up the best SP of the group, and I agree. He can. We do not have anyone proven to be a sure bet ace, but you have to expect some push back on how our SP'ers are slotted, on paper, as of now- based on what we have seen from all of them.

[Old Red]

4 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

So, do you or do you not give a "rats ass" about who does better?

I really like Bello and place him as our 3 or 4 slot SP'er, as of now. I think he can and will get better as he matures. 

You started this whole thing by saying Bello may end up the best SP of the group, and I agree. He can. We do not have anyone proven to be better, but you have to expect some push back on how our SP'ers are slotted, on paper, as of now- based on what we have seen from all of them.

No I do not care who is better, or who does better. I hope they Both turn out to be top of the rotation starters.  It started out by me saying Bello was not a 5-6 starter, and the rest came after that.  I don’t get into the slotting of SP. To me you have 5 starters, and some are better than others. I don’t set there on game day, and say we’ve got a #4 going against a #2.  Bello was already locked into the starting rotation after the 2023 for the 2024 season. Houck was not, and if Gio hadn’t gone down Houck might not have started the season in the rotation at all, so Bello was ahead of Houck. Houck had a good, and consistent season this year, which was good to see for him, and the Sox. I hope Both Bello, and Houck continue to improve, and get better, but I don’t care where they rank.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, Old Red said:

No I do not care who is better, or who does better. I hope they Both turn out to be top of the rotation starters.  It started out by me saying Bello was not a 5-6 starter, and the rest came after that.  I don’t get into the slotting of SP. To me you have 5 starters, and some are better than others. I don’t set there on game day, and say we’ve got a #4 going against a #2.  Bello was already locked into the starting rotation after the 2023 for the 2024 season. Houck was not, and if Gio hadn’t gone down Houck might not have started the season in the rotation at all, so Bello was ahead of Houck. Houck had a good, and consistent season this year, which was good to see for him, and the Sox. I hope Both Bello, and Houck continue to improve, and get better, but I don’t care where they rank.

You did "care" where someone ranked Bello, and you mentioned in the same post that you felt he could be our #1.

I'm not sure why you argue with the guy who agreed with you on Bello, while saying you don't care about rankings but go on and on about them.

[Old Red]

15 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

You did "care" where someone ranked Bello, and you mentioned in the same post that you felt he could be our #1.

I'm not sure why you argue with the guy who agreed with you on Bello, while saying you don't care about rankings but go on and on about them.

Ok I’ll try to clarify. I just don’t think Bello would be the last option to be in the rotation, or even yet not be in the rotation at all. 2025 Bue, and 2025 Gio are no sure thing, and Cro is vastly untested innings wise to know what you’ll get. If Bello takes a leap this year like Houck did last year yes I think he could be their best starter.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Old Red said:

Ok I’ll try to clarify. I just don’t think Bello would be the last option to be in the rotation, or even yet not be in the rotation at all. 2025 Bue, and 2025 Gio are no sure thing, and Cro is vastly untested innings wise to know what you’ll get. If Bello takes a leap this year like Houck did last year yes I think he could be their best starter.

I would not consider moving Bello from the rotation. He's my 3 or 4, depending on Buehler. 

I have KC going to the pen with Gio as the #5.

I'm fine, if you don't like numbering the rotation.  It does not really matter in many senses, but it seemed to me, like it does matter to you. No biggie.

MVP is not a big Bello fan. There are reasons not to. 

I really like Bello's chances of breaking out, in 2025.

[FredLynn]

1 hour ago, Old Red said:

Ok I’ll try to clarify. I just don’t think Bello would be the last option to be in the rotation, or even yet not be in the rotation at all. 2025 Bue, and 2025 Gio are no sure thing, and Cro is vastly untested innings wise to know what you’ll get. If Bello takes a leap this year like Houck did last year yes I think he could be their best starter.

Hey-don’t worry! Ownership has stated that they are going FULL THROTTLE to become competitive. Therefore I’m sure they’ll fill our needs and sign both Burnes  and Hernandez. 
 

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, FredLynn said:

Hey-don’t worry! Ownership has stated that they are going FULL THROTTLE to become competitive. Therefore I’m sure they’ll fill our needs and sign both Burnes  and Hernandez. 
 

LOL. I doubt even TH and Hoffman could happen.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

On 12/23/2024 at 11:12 AM, mvp 78 said:

Paxton was a rehab guy and not going to pitch a full year at best.

Wacha had only pitched 124 innings the year prior after finishing up in the TB bullpen with a 1.1 fWAR. Hill was a mildly better acquisition coming off a career high 158 innings and 1.7 fWAR, but at 42 years old and didn't complete 6 innings in a start until mid May. 

Those acquisitions don't get the blood flowing. Hill had 1.8 fWAR in 23 and Wacha had 1.5. That's less fWAR than the top four 2024 BOS starters: Houck, Crawford, Bello and Pivetta. I think we've overstated what those acquisitions really brought to the team. 

I disagree, they still count.

[dgalehouse]

Why is it always said that wins and losses are the worst way to evaluate a pitcher? And that ERA is overrated?  As are saves. And what we need to go by is fWAR, whatever that is? And if that doesn't do it for you, there is also bWAR to consider. Baseball is all about scoring and preventing runs . Wins and losses determine everything. It's not complicated .  All of these analytics are as bad as the constant pop-up adds on this site. 

[Bellhorn04]

20 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Why is it always said that wins and losses are the worst way to evaluate a pitcher? 

Team wins and losses - very important

Pitcher wins and losses - not very important

Why should a relief pitcher who pitched 1 inning be designated as the game winner?  Why should a starter who pitched 5 innings be the winner?  It's a team game, that's the bottom line.

Once upon a time pitching wins and losses did mean more, when starters were routinely throwing complete games.  But even back in 1968, you can see with Gibson and McLain that the W-L records didn't match up with the ERAs.  Gibson's record should have been much better than McLain's and instead it was much worse.    

[Duran Is The Man]

Just now, Bellhorn04 said:

Team wins and losses - very important

Pitcher wins and losses - not very important

Why should a relief pitcher who pitched 1 inning be designated as the game winner?  Why should a starter who pitched 5 innings be the winner?  It's a team game, that's the bottom line.

Once upon a time pitching wins and losses did mean more, when starters were routinely throwing complete games.  But even back in 1968, you can see with Gibson and McLain that the W-L records didn't match up with the ERAs.  Gibson's record should have been much better than McLain's and instead it was much worse.    

true, but i do wish there was a better way to award the "win" to somebody to make it more important. Sox pitcher pitches 8 no-hit innings and leaves with his team ahead 1-0, then a reliever -lets call him Ryan Braiser- enters in the top of the ninth, gives up a run to tie the game. then the Sox win in the bottom of the ninth and Braiser gets the win. WTF? it's stupid.

[Bellhorn04]

7 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

true, but i do wish there was a better way to award the "win" to somebody to make it more important. Sox pitcher pitches 8 no-hit innings and leaves with his team ahead 1-0, then a reliever -lets call him Ryan Braiser- enters in the top of the ninth, gives up a run to tie the game. then the Sox win in the bottom of the ninth and Braiser gets the win. WTF? it's stupid.

This is just it, the rules that determine who gets the win or loss are pretty wacky.

This year Bello was 14-8 with a 4.49 ERA, and Houck was 9-10 with a 3.12 ERA.  Crawford was 9-16 with a 4.36 ERA.  Obviously mostly luck.

[moonslav59]

I would like to see the "Win" rules be updated, and I guess we could go back and retroactively change awarded wins from the past, if we wanted to (unofficially.)

I still think "wins" would still not capture who pitches better. 

Run support is a major factor in a pitcher getting a win or not, and that has nothing to do with his skills, and it never will, no matter what the rules are.

[dgalehouse]

Of course there are flaws or quirks in any stat or any system. I think the correct pitcher gets credit for the win in most cases. In any case, winning the game is the objective . And a " save" is the reliever saving the win for another pitcher. When a pitcher consistently gets a lot of wins or a lot of saves, you probably have a good one. At least we know how this works. I have no idea how they figure fWAR or bWAR.  How do you measure the difference between a 2.6 WAR and a 2.8 ? 

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Of course there are flaws or quirks in any stat or any system. I think the correct pitcher gets credit for the win in most cases. In any case, winning the game is the objective . And a " save" is the reliever saving the win for another pitcher. When a pitcher consistently gets a lot of wins or a lot of saves, you probably have a good one. At least we know how this works. I have no idea how they figure fWAR or bWAR.  How do you measure the difference between a 2.6 WAR and a 2.8 ? 

Kinda like you measure the difference between a 20-11 SP'er and a 19-10 one.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

2 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Of course there are flaws or quirks in any stat or any system. I think the correct pitcher gets credit for the win in most cases. In any case, winning the game is the objective . And a " save" is the reliever saving the win for another pitcher. When a pitcher consistently gets a lot of wins or a lot of saves, you probably have a good one. At least we know how this works. I have no idea how they figure fWAR or bWAR.  How do you measure the difference between a 2.6 WAR and a 2.8 ? 

Good point, and a mystery why good relievers don't ever earn the WAR of good starters.

I know innings pitched -- and ideally batters retired -- makes a starter who does his job (5 full frames!) more valuable. But as far as who earns the win, there's a difference between a starter staked to a big early lead, and a starter whose offense takes the lead later, which he protects with shutdown innings.

A pitcher who doesn't cough up the lead is most valuable, whether he's a starter or reliever. In the semantics, a set-up man can be just as much or more valuable than a closer, depending on whether they're pitching clean innings or coming in to clean up someone else's mess.

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Of course there are flaws or quirks in any stat or any system. I think the correct pitcher gets credit for the win in most cases. In any case, winning the game is the objective . And a " save" is the reliever saving the win for another pitcher. When a pitcher consistently gets a lot of wins or a lot of saves, you probably have a good one. At least we know how this works. I have no idea how they figure fWAR or bWAR.  How do you measure the difference between a 2.6 WAR and a 2.8 ? 

Who is the better group of pitchers over the past 3 years?

Group A: F Valdez, Z Gallen, Z Wheeler, C Bassitt, J Berrios & Logan Webb/Wacha

or 

Group B: Wheeler, Webb, Gausman, Nola, Cease, Valdez, Skubal/Burnes

or

Group C: Fried, Skubal, Snell, Wheeler, Valdez, Burnes, Verlander/Steele

__________________________________

Group C is by ERA (300+ IP), Group B is FWAR and Group A is Win totals.

 

 

[dgalehouse]

11 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Kinda like you measure the difference between a 20-11 SP'er and a 19-10 one.

That is a non answer. I still have no idea how they figure one guy is a 2.8 and another guy is only a 2.6.  And I don't think you know either. 

[moonslav59]

8 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

That is a non answer. I still have no idea how they figure one guy is a 2.8 and another guy is only a 2.6.  And I don't think you know either. 

It's easier to say a 2.8 guys is better than a 2.6 guy than it is to say 20-11 is better than 19-9 or even 19-6 or 21-17.

[dgalehouse]

10 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Who is the better group of pitchers over the past 3 years?

Group A: F Valdez, Z Gallen, Z Wheeler, C Bassitt, J Berrios & Logan Webb/Wacha

or 

Group B: Wheeler, Webb, Gausman, Nola, Cease, Valdez, Skubal/Burnes

or

Group C: Fried, Skubal, Snell, Wheeler, Valdez, Burnes, Verlander/Steele

__________________________________

Group C is by ERA (300+ IP), Group B is FWAR and Group A is Win totals.

 

 

I know how to compute ERA. And wins and losses. The only thing I know about fWAR is that it is an acronym for Wins above Replacement. So that gets us back to wins, whether real or imaginary.  I still have no idea how they rate one pitcher slightly higher than another. And I don't think very many fans do. But they go along with it because it seems like the thing to do. 

[dgalehouse]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

It's easier to say a 2.8 guys is better than a 2.6 guy than it is to say 20-11 is better than 19-9 or even 19-6 or 21-17.

A 20-11 guy is a guy who won twenty and lost eleven. What is a 2.8 guy?  What calculation do you use to come up with 2.8?