moonslav59

Kelley will be pitcher #25 (counting Nunez)! WOW! That's an awfully big merry-go-round!

It also calls off the dogs screaming for a trade for a top closer, although getting one now couldn't hurt.

Exactly! Here are our starter IP and Runs allowed in reverse order by date: 5.1- 2 0.1- 6 6.0- 6 6.0- 3 6.1- 5 6.0- 5 5.0- 1 (Johnson) 5.0- 4 7.0- 4 5.0- 1 (Price) 7.0- 0 (Porcello) 3.0- 1 (Johnson) 6.0- 2 Sale 7.0- 1 (ERod) 1.1- 6 6.2- 2 (Porcello) 3.0- 4 7.0- 0 (Sale) 5.2- 4 6.0- 1 (Price) 4.0- 4 6.0- 4 1.1- 2 We had a nice little stretch in mid June, but our starters have let us down, recently.

You are still being as arbitrary with your sample size choice as I. Equalizing the time in ST'ing to the start of the ML season sounds fine, but holds no more special significance than my chosen May 11th date. We played a minor league game on 30 days (I did not count days with 2 games.) Most of the top 4-5 starters got 2-3 starts. By April 30th, most had 4-5 starts as we had played 30 games by 4/30/19. It's not an equal sample size.It's just an equal calendar time. My splits are meant to show "what have you done for us lately?" I showed 14 days, 28 days and from May 11th. All of those sample sizes show the staff doing worse than the end of April to mid May and worse than these pitcher's recent 3 year "norms", except for Price. It doesn't seem too hard to understand the significance of using various recent sample sizes to counter the statement that our pitchers "are doing as well as their norms". The "are" means present tense and can be any variety of most recent sample sizes to choose from. May first is a viable choice, but it is no better than May 11th or 22nd. The more recent you make the sample size (as long as it is large enough) the more in the present tense you get. Our starters, other than Price who is not giving us the IP we need are doing worse in the past 2, 4 or 7 weeks than their 3 year norms. If you count May 1 to now, 3 of the 4 are doing worse- not as bad as later sample sizes but still worse. Throwing out March and April still show them as doing worse. Can they turn it around to the point where their 5/1 to October numbers match or exceed their "norm," but so far they have not done so.

"Quite simple?" Because you say it is. What makes May 1st any more magical than May 11th or April 26th? Again, May 1st is NOT a month. We played 4 games in March. How is the fact that our SP'ers did well from May 1st to the 10th more meaningful than how they have done since May 11th, or the past 28 days or 14 days? The rest should be making these guys stronger at the mid season point, and yet they have been doing worse than the end of April and early May. Sure,most of our top 4 starter numbers might end up close to their recent numbers after throwing out April, but the idea of resting them in ST'ing was that they'd do better when we needed them. Yes, they have done better than April & March, but they are not giving us anything extra recently and as far back as mid May. Yes, it's good to see ERod going 1/3 or 2/3 more innings per start, but he pitched better last year, so that's a wash at best, IMO. Price is better. Sale was doing better before his recent slump. Porcello is a mess.

Right. He's not even throwing now, is he?

How is May 11th any less relevant than May 1st? You arbitrarily chose a number based on the neatness of a month's ending, despite the fact that we played 4 games in March. That being said, here are the May1>> numbers: ERA Pitcher IP/GS 2.78 Sale (6.48) 3.19 Price (4.70) 4.16 ERod (5.72) 4.86 Porcello (6.09) ERA 2016-2018 2.56 Sale (0.22 lower than above sample) 3.81 Price (0.62 higher) 3.99 Porcello (0.87 lower) 4.22 ERod (0.08 lower) The starter numbers look better from May 1st than from May 11th, but that just emphasizes the fact that they are doing worse more recently, when they should and need to be doing better. That was my point. Last 28 days shows the trend going the wrong way: 2.73 Sale (5GS) 4.60 ERod (5) 4.91 Price (4) 5.88 Porcello (5) Last 14 days (Only Porcello had a start in London): 3.00 Price (1) 5.30 ERod (3) 6.55 Sale (2) 15.63 Porcello (2)

Exactly, and the whole "restgate" thing should have put our starters in a position to go deeper than normal to help "pick-up" the struggling pen. The opposite has been true. 3 of out top 4 starters are doing much worse than their 3 year numbers since May 11th.

To those who thought the budget was near limitless, what say you now?

He's the only Sox 5+ slot pitcher with a decent ERA is his 2 starts.

Records of our 5+ starters: GS Pitcher (Team record in starts) Run support (ERA as starter) 7 Velazquez (4-3) 4.87 (6.41) 4 Eovaldi (3-1) 5.86 (6.00) 3 Weber (2-1) 8.00 (7.94) 2 Smith (0-2) 1.50 (9.82) 2 Johnson (1-1) 7.11 (1.13) 1 DHern (0-1) 9.00 (9.00) Look at those ERAs! We are 10-9 in these 19 games despite the ERA. We've actually got lucky in these starts as we tend to score more when they pitch.

If he stays, we may need 3.

The other big area we used to stock up the farm was comp picks for losing high level players to free agency. That system has been changed, as well, and we no longer are able to get good prospects with supplemental picks- plus there used to be several "hard to sign" prospects that dropped into that range for high spending teams to scoop up. Not any more. Here we are.

Players did do radio & newspaper ads and actually go to businesses to drum up crowds and consumers.

...and Wright throws one of the hardest knuckleballs ever thrown. I'd stick with Johnson until he shows he can't do it. Use Wright and Velazquez in all to often needed long relief roles. I'm not sure about Walden's usage going forward. Maybe only pitch him in low leverage situations to see if he can snap out of this funk. Barnes may need a 10 day IL stint. He needs to be watched closely and not used in high leverage until he shows improvement. We could really use Hembree, but I fear he is done for 2019. Brewer has done well, of late, so I ride the hot arm for as long as we can. He's my second set-up man to Workman. Brasier looks to be doing better, but he needs to be moved up slowly. Closer: Eovaldi Top Set-up: Workman & Brewer 7th inning: Brasier & ______(trade acquisition) 5th & 6th: Wright, Velazquez Scrub duty (for now): Barnes or Walden (maybe Smith)

Well said. Vaz could hit for a 2.000 OPS, but if we are allowing 2-3 runs more a game with him catching, it will not outweigh the defense.

Is it any worse that trotting Barnes out there?

This was an area we gained a lot of our top prospects from. When I warned of the steep rocky terrain we were headed towards, I emphasized how the IFA rule changes and restrictions on high spending and winning teams would make re-stocking the farm very difficult. Here we are.

Endorsements were probably rare and low paid as well.

These 3 days off sandwiched around 2 horrific games is killing me!

I think we've had 13 pitchers not 12 all season long. That helps a little but when 2-3 of those 13 are scrubs we are suffering the affects in the middle of games. Also, too often our starters are putting us in deep holes- sometimes very early in games. Adding Eovaldi to the closer role could help a lot, if he is effective, but we still need to acquire another quality set-up man or two, and soon. Push Workman, Barnes and Brasier to the 7th and 8th innings, and Brewer, Walden? and Wright to the 5th and 6th innings. Johnson or Velazquez, whoever is not starting, will have to be the long man. Some Numbers as RP'ers only: IP Pitcher ERA 21 Velazquez 4.29 19 Thornburg 7.71 13 Taylor 5.68 13 Shawaryn 8.53 11 Smith 2.45 9 Lakins 5.79 8 Weber 1.13 6 Johnson 13.50 4 Poyner 15.75 4 Wright 4.50 3 Ramirez 12.00 2 DHern 0.00 Granted, these guys have not pitched all that much, but even if you take away Velazquez, Johnson & Wright, it's over 80 IP. That's 80 too many. Last 28 days: 13 Shawaryn 8.53 11 Walden 8.18 11 Barnes 9.00 11 Taylor 5.91 3 Poyner 15.00 3 DHern 9.00 1 Weber 13.50 12 Brewer 0.73 10 Workman 0.93 10 Brasier 1.86 8 Johnson 2.16 6 Velazquez 1.50 4 Wright 4.50 3 Hembree 0.00 (IL)

Is this sample size big enough? Starter ERA since May 11th: 2.97 Price (8 GS) 3.30 Sale (9 GS) 5.00 ERod (9) 5.05 Porcello (10) ERA 2016-2018 2.56 Sale (0.74 lower than above sample) 3.81 Price (0.84 higher) 3.99 Porcello (1.06 lower) 4.22 ERod (0.78 lower)

I totally agree, but again, my point is about how the rest should have helped them do better of late, and all 4 have bad numbers their last 5-9 starts.

Um, I also listed some pretty bad 5-9 game sample sizes. My original point was about the pen imploding but that not being the only thing going south the last 3-4 weeks.

This explains why DD hasn't traded for as closer already, but we have needed another set up man for weeks, now.