moonslav59

We get it.

I don't get it either. Pitchers used to go very 4 days and go deeper in the games as well. There were injuries then, but if it's all about IP, one would have expected more.

Thanks for the verification, slash, but I really wasn't trying for any glory on this. I've been wrong on these things too many times to gloat when I seemingly got one right. I say "seemingly", because I never hear what the best offer was, and I might have said no to it.

You're probably right. Sox brass must have valued him more than the best offer made.

This city is going mental! So happy to see the Yanks lose. I will say, they got hosed on strike calls, but the 'stros deserved the win.

Yes, that was the point I was making. Another reason to trade Bogey is that with Devers at 3B on defense, having a superb defensive SS might help mitigate the loss of Bogey's bat.

ISO numbers since 2014: (Selected players- not all listed) .242 Player A .240 Rizzo .236 Goldschmidt .227 Votto .224 Abreu .204 Miggy .197 Santana .196 Morrison .191 Reynolds .189 HRam .187 Moreland .178 AGon .160 Hosmer Last 2 years: .272 Freeman .256 Encarnacion .253 Player A .243 Rizzo .241 Votto .231 Morrison .218 Santana .218 Valbuena .211 Abreu .204 Miggy & HRam .197 Reynolds .193 Moreland .173 Hosmer (and people wonder why I'm sour on the Hoze) .173 Alonso To be fair, here are the wRC+ numbers over the last 2 years: 129 Abreu 124 Santana 119 Hoze 118 Morrison 112 HRam 109 Alonso 108 Player A 107 Valbuena 103 Reynolds .153 Alonso Last 4 years: 161 Votto 139 Abreu 124 Player A 120 Santana 116 Hosmer 113 HRam 107 Alonso 98 Reynolds 98 Moreland Who is Player A? (Hint: he will likely sign for 1 year.)

You're not alone, and I think GMs value him likewise, so I'm not sure Bogey's value slipped than much last year. Also, I think GMs figure maybe his offense dipped due to playing injured.

I don't care about Vaz's offense. Just give me .675 or so.

I'm sure other GMs had doubts about Swi's defense, and also did not have as high hopes for his offense as many Sox fans had, but he had a good CS% and looked decent in 2015. That was probably enough for just one Gm to bite.

Yes, I agree. Kelly's FB is so hard, but it doesn't move much, so once through the line-up sounds like the upper limit.

Very good points. I do think that with's Smith and Workman's return and a full season from Maddox, we should be better and deeper in the pen. We could even add another arm, preferably a long type RP'er.

Yes, I'm sure there were other similar games, and I mentioned that possibility as well as the chances we might have lost a game or 2 by doing so. I get it. Maybe someday, when I have more time, I'll so a more thorough study. It might turn out that we could only have shaved off 5-10 IP without serious risk of losing a game or two more. I might also find a game we might have won.

Including arms that can go 2-3 IP--very good arms. Look at CLE this year with Miller in long relief and still getting 57 appearances. They also had Otero and McAllister with more IP than games, and other RP'ers who went more than 1 IP several times.

You don't need a 6th starter to get Sale more rest. Maybe all we need is a solid RP'er or two who can go 2-3 innings, instead of just 1. Maybe Beeks, Haley and/or Johnson could be groomed for that role. We could also use Kelly less often but for 2-3 innings per appearance. He was used for more than an inning several times last year and was a starter not long ago. Workman and Barnes could also be used that way a little more than this year. If we're talking about only limiting Sale's pitches, it should not entail a major roster reconstruction or any fancy 6-man rotation ideas. We may not even need to stretch any short guys into long guys. We could just add one more solid RP'er to the already deep mix we have. If we're talking Sale and Price, which maybe we should, then maybe we need to tweek a couple guys into middle relief 2-3 inning guys from the 1 to 2 IP guys they are now. Personally, I'd keep Kelly as a 1 or 1.1 IP guy and try to use Barnes and Workman as 2-3 IP guys with less appearances. I would not wait until June to start limiting IP'ed. Look, I realize Sale's late season numbers could just be bad luck or a fluke. He could pitch 220 IP next year and be bad in July and great in October. We could miss the playoffs or divisional title by resting Sale a few pitches each start. I get that. It's a gamble. We can argue whether it's small gamble vs a big gamble. We can argue whether it's even necessary, but to me his career numbers scream out for trying something different. I don't think taking 5-15 pitches off just about every start is going to keep us out of the playoffs in 2018, especially if we make a few key acquisitions. It would be bad to lose the division by a game or two, because we yanked Sale with the lead 2-3 times more than we could have. That would be awful, despite not really knowing what might have happened had we left him in. Having a strong Sale in October should be a priority- maybe not a top priority, but one nonetheless. JF and Dusty just got fired for not getting past round one. Obviously, just making the playoffs isn't the top goal for teams that spend like we do. Sale led the league in IP and pitched over 226 IP last year. It's not too much to ask for that not to happen in 2018. He pitched over 224 innings this year counting the playoffs. I'm not going to go back and look at every game he pitched this year and the score when they took him out, but with just a cursory look at his game logs, I see he pitched over 107 pitches in all but 8 starts. He pitched 97 or more in all but 3 and only had one start under 92 IP. He went 11 straight starts from May 30th to July 26th with 108+ pitches before letting up 7 ER in 5 IP on Aug 1st. Starting August first, he had 5 of his last 11 starts with less than 98 pitches. He let up 3 or more runs in 6 of those 11 starts (4 or more in 5 of 11). If you count his two playoff games, he never made it over 100 pitches in 7 of his last 13 games (one was in long relief). One might say, see he got some rest! I don't see it that way. I think we should be more proactive and not so reactive. I'm not talking an 85 pitch count either, but keeping him under 90 or 95 every few starts could be all it takes. Maybe that's 8-12 starts a year. Maybe we lose 2-3 of those games because we pulled him an inning earlier, but to me it could very well still be "worth it". With a strong pen that might be more than what is probable. Again, looking at his game logs, I feel we might not have lost any games had we done this (maybe not all these games, as I did not check what the score was when he was removed and what RP'er were available at the time): 4/20 1 less IP (8IP to 7IP) we won 4-1 5/7 1 less IP (6 to 5) we won 17-6 5/24 1 less IP (8 to 7) we won 9-4 5/30 1 less IP (5 to 4) we won 13-7 6/4 1 less IP (6 to 5) we won 7-3 6/10 less 2 IP (7 to 6) we won 11-3 6/27-10 less 1.1 IP (8.1 to 7) we won 8-3 6/26 less 1.1 IP (6.1 to 5) we won 4-1 7/1 less 1 or 2 IP ( 7 to 6 or 5) we won 7/21 less 1 IP (6 to 5) we won 6-2 7/26 less 1 IP (7 to 6) we won 4-0 9/20 less 2-3 IP (8 to 6 or 5) we won 9-0 These are 12 possible games we could have taken away up to 17.2 IPoff his work load. My guess is some of these games were closer when we took him out, but maybe taking away 10-14 IP could have led to no more losses at all- maybe not. I'm not even sure limiting him by 14 IP would have made a difference in game 1 of the playoffs. I'm thinking it very well could have. It's just an opinion based on many moving speculative parts. I realize that. I think we should try limiting his pitches next year- maybe not very game. Maybe giving him an extra day (more than he got this year) 5 times, which would amount to 1 lost start over the full season might be better. Maybe losing 2 starts works much better.

He actually has young players/prospects ready to fill in for guys he may trade, unlike us. He planned to win now and going forward.

In hindsight, probably not, but many wanted him traded before the injury to Vaz, and after the injury, many felt he should be traded as soon as Vaz was deemed ready to go (March 2016?). He still had value when they sent him down. Though trades are hardly made in early April, they could have shopped him around starting then, instead of showing the world they gave up on him as a catcher. In hindsight, the best time might have been right before the 2016 season, when management obviously felt Vaz was ready. That may or may not have been his peak value moment, but it was much higher then than before his position change in the minors and subsequent injury in LF.

I said it many times before he was called up prematurely when Vaz was injured. Then, I said it after his year in the majors in 2015. I'm not trying to claim I was a genius. There were many of us who felt the same way- maybe 50-50 at the "old site". I always thought Vaz should and would win the job, and Swi would end up at another position, and since his value was higher as a catcher, we should trade him. So many teams are looking for a good catcher. His value elsewhere had to be higher than with us as a projected back-up catcher and 1Bman (which is where I felt he'd end up at the time). '

Totally agree, and I said it back then, too. Catchers are always in such high demand. We could have gotten something useful. Now, he's near valueless, so we might as well hang on and pray.

I totally agree. I'd let Leon be Sale's caddy and start Vaz about 4 out of every 5 games.

But, first, he must don a gorilla suit and go AWOL, then wait a few years.

Terrific? August 2017 4.38 ERA worst of the season 1.054 WHIP is pretty "terrific", but it was his second worst month. OPS against: .875 Sept .640 May .620 Aug .574June .500 July .433 April His K/BB ratio was 3rd worst in August and worst in September, so I'm not sure how his K rate and BB did not get worse at the end of the season. (1st half 8.09 & second half 6.19) Career 1st half/2nd half ERA: 2.74/ 3.28 WHIP: 0.97/ 1.14 OPS: .583/ .679 tOPS+ 86/ 116 K/BB: 5.34/4.90 tOPS+ by month (career) 87 72 90 101 105 138

Not from me, and he barely got any extra rest. He started 32 games, instead of 33. He did get an extra day every time we got a day off, which was better than skipping another starter's start, but I do not think it was enough. I do hope we plan better next year. Even if we do, I'm not sure it will work, but it's worth a try.

Yes, and poor managing.

162/5 = 33 (ace & #2) & 32 (3/4/5 starters) 162/6 =27 So about 6, but if you never give your ace an extra day (6 days off), then it might be just missing 5 or so. You could conceivably try and get a few more pitches out of your better starters every start, but that might defeat the purpose to some extent.