moonslav59
-
Posts
105,123 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
134
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by moonslav59
-
It's close, but as of now, I trust Brasier more than Barnes, too. The fact is, we just don't have trustworthy arms in the pen. With Whitlock starting and Houck locked into 1 specific relief role every 5 games, the only guy I half-way trust is Strahm. Robles and Davis have moved up by attrition.
-
No doubt. The numbers have really fell off a cliff over the past week or two. One thing I have noticed is that many of our worst RP'ers, at least by OPS Against, have faced more batters than the ones who have done better. Worsst OPS Against and ranking in most batters faced among our 14 pitchers who have pitching from the pen: .997 Crawford 2nd .915 Diekman T5th .778 Barnes T5th .751 Brasier 9th .745 Davis 1st 4 of our 6 most used pen arms are on our 5 worst OPSA list. Granted, Plawecki (.500) has our 4th best, and Schreiber (.375) has our best, and Whitlock (.384) and Houck (.745) have been used as starters, but ... Strahm .461 is 8th in batters faced Valdez .556 in in AAA Robles .580 is in a tailspin
-
Agreed, and that is but one silly part about the save stat.
-
Some of the other aspects of the way a save is determined is silly, and my point was more about judging a pen mostly on "saves," especially with this new ghost runner thing giving some teams multiple blown saves in just one extra inning game, when a pitcher might not even allow a hit or baserunner to reach base. Yup, silly, to me, in many ways. That doesn't mean I think a RP'er who allows the tying run to score should be viewed as a good thing or ignored.
-
If he finishes the season with 90-10o by going to a 1 inning closer role, is that better than him getting 132 in a long man/spot starter role? To me, it's not an easy choice, and I think Houck is better suited for one inning stints.
-
Indeed. He looked real good in his first 6 games, the real bad his next 2.
-
You made a good case for Whitlock. I will add that much of what you said about Whitlock could be said about Houck, too. Even counting the minors, Houck has only gone more than 83 innings once (back in 2019.)
-
Maybe Seabold? Davis has gone longer than 1 inning twice and Robles 3 times. I would not use Crawford in that role, anymore. Is Valdez a choice?
-
Maybe even the best. Yes, he should start, IMO. I'd send Houck to be the one inning closer. Define his role, too.
-
Sometimes, the problem is players try too hard, when they are struggling. It's not about motivation deficiencies... sometimes.
-
We all know, sometimes pitchers have it, and sometimes the don't. Great pitchers do well enough when they don't, but can we let our starters go just a little longer, when they do? I don't think this is an extreme idea.
-
I disagree on the term "absolutely" they will do worse. Some do not, or at worst, it's not so absolute..
-
Well said, cp.
-
If you look at career and 2021, it's too close to say he's worse the 3rd time vs 2nd. It's about the same. Now, if you want to argue he's been more successful because his arm is not being overused, that might have some truth to it, but the guy has done pretty much the same the 2nd and 3rd time through. His 2021 number is .173 points better than Nate, and Nate had his best career year, in 2021. His career number is .117 points better than Nate.
-
My point was more about Wache being better the 3rd time through than Eovaldi- career and 2021, yet who is the only guys they let o 3+? Eovaldi and for a while, Pivetta. Wacha has significantly better numbers than Nate. I'm with you on Hill, but let's give Wacha a couple chances beyond the second time through. I'm with you on Houck. Start him or make him the one inning closer.
-
Then, we can say the pen has turned things around. Oh, the silliness of using blown saves to judge relief pitching.
-
and about .200 from Betts!
-
Maybe it's time to bring Walter & Bello up to AAA. Maybe, bring Seabold & Kelly up to the bigs. (DFA Danish or Davis to add Kelly to the 40.)
-
Like I said, his career numbers show he's about the same the 2nd time and 3rd time through. When you look at the career numbers of all our starters, Wacha and Hill blow the others away, and the 2021 numbers support the same conclusion. If anyone should go through 3 times, it's Wacha and Hill and sometimes Big Nate. 2021/Career OPS Against 2021: 1st time> 2nd time> 3rd time through a line-up Career: 1st time> 2nd time> 3rd time through a line-up Eovaldi .648>.670>.780 .669>.706>.867 Wacha .777>.747>.607 .682>.742>.750 Hill .649>.838>.586 .637>.725>.674 Pivetta .700>.641> 1.011 .762>.742>.901 Houck .516>.619>1.489 .497>.626>1.017
-
Woo lost the first game 2-1, but Winckowski looked good, again: 5 IP 2H 0 BB 8K. They won the second game 5-4 with Pannone going 5 IP with 4H 2ER 0BB 4K. Ort let up a run buy got the save. Greenville won 7-4 with Rafaela hitting his 7th and Northcut his 10th (3 hits).
-
He finally walked his first batter of the season, 10Ks and 1 BB in 6 IP (3H and 0 ER) In the second game, Bello went 7 without allowing a hit. (3BB 5K 1 unearned run)
-
How does having just as good an OPS Against the 3rd time through as the second, career, show he was being left in too long? 2021 .777 1st time .748 2nd time .607 3rd time .
-
It's hard to guess right on RP'ers with sketchy resumes. Last year, Bloom swung and missed on the starters: Richards and Perez. Kike and Renfroe were good, but Marwin and Sawamura not so good.
-
I'm pretty sure there was some back and forth about roster construction over the winter. Maybe Cora was okay with what he was given. Maybe they discussed making summer moves, if needed. Maybe Cora was unhappy all along. We do know, some of the money spent on JBJ and Story could have been used on pitching. Let's see how the rest of the season plays out.
-
No, but they both had better OPS Against the 3rd time through than Big Nate, last year. If it's all about the 3rd time through, then let's make it all about who has proven they can go three times. The three I see are Big Nate, Hill and Wacha. If you try it, and it fails, then make another adjustment.
