moonslav59

I'll take 64 from Sale over 84 from Perez or Richards. Plus, it might be up to 75-85 after this next start. Number of pitches by Richards and Perez, their last 5 starts: Richards: 54, 94, 92, 85, 82 Perez: 67, 86, 79, 73, 62 (80 today) My guess is 70-75 pitches from Sale gets us more IP than 80-85 by Perez or Richards.

Exactly. He was already way over the intended pitch count. Look how many pitchers have done very poorly, this year, after a no hitter or near no hitter. Managers know what they are doing, even if we don't see it.

I think we do, too. I don't think it will be a big name player. It might even be a platoon player. I also would not be surprised to see Bloom pull a Rays move by trading Richards, Perez or Sawamura to cut salary and allow us to deal for a better pitcher and 1Bman. We may end up with a roster squeeze when Sale and Sawamura are ready, and I'm not even looking at Andriese, Brasier and Seabold. Sale Eovaldi ERod Pivetta Perez Richards Barnes Ottavino Whitlock Houck Taylor DHern That's 12 and all deserve to stay on the 26. If we go with 13, it's Sawamura. Bye bye to Andriese- DFA'd- no options Bye by to Workman- DFA'd- no options Bye bye to Valdez (demoted with 2 options) Bye bye to Rios (demoted with one option) No Brasier or Seabold If we trade for a pitcher and go with 12 pitchers, what 2 pitchers go? If we go with 13, one has to go (DHern demoted, really?) We could be buyers and sellers. Trade Richards, Perez or Sawamura and save some money. The return prospect might be unpromising. Then use the money saved to trade for 2 salary dump players: P and 1B.

NY Post headline: "Fork Inserted!"

I wouldn't say either game was won or lost on those managerial choices.

You answered a question that was not mine. The fact is a 1.1 HR/9 rate is not bad at all. In fact, it's okay, and your whole point about HR/FB being the predictor of HRs and some sort of major indicator of how good a pitcher is is full of holes. Chris freakin' Sale has a 12.0% HR/FB%, and so do a ton of good to great pitchers who have that or worse, like Trevor Bauer Strasburg Beckett Sony Gray Sabathia Darvish Nola Keuchel 14.6 The worst 3 out of 153 are... 16.2% Tanaka 15.2% R Ray (a guy people want us to trade for now) 14.6% K Gibson (a guy people want us to trade for, now)

No hitter, then 5 straight hits by the 6 through 1 hitters! BAM! Thank you, mam!

Thunder Magic!

It's final: Tito's Guardians beat the Rays!

the 2-5 slots went 0-14. The bottom of order is oodles better than earlier in the season.

Even more dramatic. This just ended the Yankee season.

I said he was the best a couple years back and almost got banned from the site on the blasphemy clause.

Never give up on this team! N E V E R !

LOL. At least you don't say he sucks.

I think you have a valid point, but isn't this overkill?

Bottom order thunder!

It certainly has nothing to do with 2021, unless we sign him.

I'd say ERA- and ERA+ more so, but basically, yes. The ERA, ERA- and ERA+ show Porcello to be a decent #3 or #4, same with WHIP. Other measures, especially those that place great value on IP show him to be a solid #2 or #3. (fWAR actually shows he could be a lower #1 starter in his era (top 30 SP'er). I think some of this debate is actually semantics. What do I consider "good" or "very good" vs what others do. I'm fine with that. I get the argument that pitching lots of mediocre innings should not add value, but I think he was better than mediocre, and mediocre sure is better than crappy, which is usually what you get when you have a SP'er not give you many innings. To me, Porcello was good to maybe very good- not great, not elite. He was either a low #2 SP'er or a top #3. That's good in my bookand many stats back that up. Even going by ERA, ERA- and ERA+ and comparing him to the all the starters of his era, he was still good. I can see people calling his ERA mediocre, and I would not say they are wrong, but there are a ton of crappy pitchers out there and not that many batter than Rick. IMO, all terms like mediocre, good and very good are relative terms. You are relating Porcello to the pitchers of his era and determining where he fits in the spectrum. Most stats and metrics show him to be average to good and some even very good. Put them all together, and he was good.

Think what you want, but you can't answer simple and direct questions. I've been in the discussion from the start.

Kike had about 90 innings at 1B. I was surprised they moved Arroyo. Maybe Kike plays 1B, despite it being a waste of his defense.

Agreed, and I think we have some good assets that we cannot protect, next season, unless we only sign 1-2 FAs. I think Bloom will identify a 2-3 good players that may not be part of our long term plans and trade them.

I followed the discussion from the start. You responded to a post with a statement about HR% being mostly a fluke. You did not say in small sample sizes nor does that relate to the debate, even if you had said it. I'm still waiting to know how that statement relates to Porcello, a guy with a good HR% over a super long sample size. Why did you say it, if it doesn't relate to Porcello? If it does relate, tell us how it relates.

When Arroyo returns, I think he plays 1B vs RHPs. Dalbec plays 1B vs LHPs. Arroyo plays 2B vs LHPs. Kike plays OF vs LHPs. (Someone sits: Duran, Verdugo, Arroyo, Kike or even give Bogey a rest and play Arroyo at SS.)

Here it is...(including the post you responded to) Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post HR/FB does rely on FB%. If a pitcher simply isn’t giving up fly balls, the percentage that go yard takes on less meaning. Also, ballpark is a factor… You responed: HR% most of the times are fluke outcomes, but HR/FB tries to predict —as BABIP and LOB do— whether it was a fluke or not. As I said, in Porcello’s case, when you watch his FB/HR rate through 11 years, you can assume with 100%% certainty, that he’s been a prone HR pitcher due his poor command of his sinker. What did I misread? He pitched o long career and his HR/FB rate did not "predict" a high HR%. He had a very decent HR% and a high GB%. What am I missing?

I agree. The debate we were having is that Nick and I think, if he's pitching, why not let it be in the bigs, even if on a limited pitch count? I think it's a good idea, but the danger might be that he overdoes it in the bigs where he would not do that in the minors, and maybe we should not bring him up until we think it's safe for him to go all out. (Not in terms of too many pitches but in throwing too hard.) I'd say bring him up after this next minor league game in a limited role, at first. Dangers and all.