moonslav59

Imagine, if we still had Nate and Nick... fWAR Leaders: 5th: Crochet & Nate at 2.2 13th: Pivetta at 1.7 Many of us wanted #11 Fried at 1.8, instead of Buehler at 0.3. Others mentioned, a lot, over this past winter: 1.7 Woo (some wanted Miller) 1.5 Severino, Joe Ryan and Mitch Keller 1.3 Cease, Ober and Wacha 1.1 Sonny Gray (for Yoshida? LOL) 1.0 Holmes (Sale is at 1.6) Matthew Boyd is at 1.2! Some we might not want to admit we liked: -0.2 Alcantara -0.1 Z Eflin (2023)

The amount of 3 hour games has been reduced enormously. There is no doubt that pitchers are taking less time between throwing. Yes, some much less than they used to and others not so much or close to the same. It makes sense that less refresh time between pitches is a factor. I'm not sure how much refresh time is safe, and it may vary from person to person or hardly matter to some people. IMO, it made a difference. I'm not sure how much, and it could be coincidental that the rule change happened just at the time injuries appear to have sky-rocketed. I'm not sure it's a major reason, but I'm pretty sure it has made a difference, along with other things that have changed in recent years or over the last 1-2 decades.

There is data to shows that the amount of refresh time between exertions is a factor in injuries. That can mean between pitches and between outings, which includes hard throwing sessions, not just appearances. Of course, throwing harder or twisting for wrist or arm to add more spin matters, too. Starting at an earlier age matters, as well. The throwing harder, throwing harder earlier in life and adding more spin are things that have gradually been increasing over the years. The one thing that happened, overnight, was the pitch clock, and the sudden rash of injuries that started immediately after the rule change does point to it being a significant factor. It's not ironclad proof, but it does seem likely it matters.

This could be the main culprit, and I neglected to even mention it.

Yes, that's why I added (5th or 6th innings.)

But, the great pitchers don't let up that grand slam in the 9th (or 5th and 6th, these days.)

Wrong, again. There are also advantages to having a .400+ OBP up 2nd vs 4th, and that is why I don't have an issue with Cora batting Devers 2nd not 4th. My argument with you is over your continued insistence than Devers gets more RBI chances with Rafaela and DHam up before him over other better batters. It's not an argument against Cora. I'm pretty sure he knows the rbi situation, but values a high OBP from the 2 slot more. I have no beef with that. You still don't get it. Apparently, you never will. You can't even understand what the debate is about, let alone what position others hold.

We are 6 games away from the 40% mark on the season. We are 5 games past the 33% mark of the season (54 games.) Here are the fWAR and bWAR averages of our players still on the team: (FWAR, bWAR) 2.7 Bregman (2.4, 3.0) on IL 2.2 Devers (2.1, 2.3) Da MAN! 1.9 Narvaez (1.8, 1.9) WOW! 1.9 Abreu (1.6, 2.1) 1.6 Rafaela (1.2, 1.9) 1.2 Duran (1.1, 1.3) 0.6 Refsnyder (0.5, 0.7) 0.3 Romy (0.2, 0.3) 0.2 Toro (0.2, o.1) About a 0.0 KC (0.1, -0.3), Mayer (0.0, 0.1), DHam (-0.1, +o.2), Story (-0.2, +0.1) -0.2 Sogard (-0.3, -0.2) -0.7 Casas (-0.6, 0.9 is out for season) Pitchers: 2.3 Crochet 2.2, 2.4 0.9 Chapman 0.7, 1.1 0.5 Dobbins 0.8, 0.2 0.5 Wilson 0.5, 0.5 0.4 Whitlock 0.4, 0.3 0.4 Buehler 0.3, 0.4 0.4 Bernardino 0.3, 0.4 0.4 Weissert 0.2, 0.6 0.3 Slaten 0.5, 0.0 0.3 Fitts 0.2, 0.4 0.2 Bello 0.0, 0.4 0.2 Giolito 0.2, 0.1 about a 0.0: Wink , Guerrero, Burdi -0.2 Criswell -0.1, -0.3 and Hendriks -0.3 Kelly -1.0 Houck -0.4, -1.6 (FWAR had Newcomb at +0.5, but bWAR at -0.2)

They award wins to SP'ers and RP'ers this way, too. It's never going to be 18, 20 or 22 wins, either.

Again, a wrong assumption. I fully know Cora is choosing to bat Devers second. Thinking I don't know this further exposes your total lack of understanding other poster's positions and opinions. I have said numerous times that these sort of line-up changes and suggested changes are minor issues, and the philosophy of batting your best hitter 2nd had a lot of merit. I'm not pissed at Cora for batting Devers second. I am arguing with your position on thinking Devers could not have more RBIs by batting 4th not 2nd. That's all this is. Also, our #2 slot is not a problem, at all. Not top 500, even. It's a plus, not a problem. The problem my opinion tries to address is the major issue with out 4 slot batter, all year. THIS YEAR, as you keep pointing to. What is the solution to that problem? We've tried many options, and all have failed. Now that Bregman is out, moving Devers to the 4 slot makes less sense, but maybe it coudl still be better than him batting 2nd. That's what this talk is about. Yes, it's based on speculation, perhaps the biggest being who will bat 2nd and 3rd, and how much better will theor OBPs be compared to Rafaela, DHam and whoever is projected to bat 8th and 9th going forward. (Note: one of our best 8/9 batters, Narvaez, may never bat 8th or 9th, again, this year.) I may disagree with Cora on this minor issue, but he's not telling the world that Devers could not possibly have more rbis b atting 4th, because he leads the league, now. That would be you. Again, you refuse to answer the simple question, as always.... Do you really believe having Rafaela, DHam and our other worst batters up in front of Devers gives him as many or more RBI chances than batters like Abreu, Refsnyder and Bregman (before he went down injured?) I don't expect a real answer,,, just further deflections and avoidances.

I agree. I think the chance Cora gets promoted are higher than the chances he gets fired or put into a situation where he quits. I think other teams would jump at the opportunity to hire him as a manger or even a GM or assistant GM role. That being said, this team is really stuck in a rut. They lack many basic fundamentals, which is sometimes wrongly attributed to the manager and not years of unlearned skills, is part of this team's issues. Sometimes, a change in leadership gives a team the spark it needs to reach it's full potential, and it really has little to do with how good or bad the current manager is. Players get complacent, for whatever reason, and maybe a manger is partially of almost fully to blame, but it's hard to know for sure.

I have never been one to put much value in a SP'ers win total, and this was long before fangraphs. team wins are very important, but when I try to determine who is a really good pitcher, I have never thought assigned wins and losses are a major value. Sure, I moved away from ERA to ERA-, ERA+, SIERA, FIP, xFIP and xFIP- more and more. I moved away from WHIP towards OPS Against, K%-BB% and other "newer" stats and metrics, but my views on W's and L's have not changed much, at all. Wins matter a lot for a team, and I agree that some pitchers just seem to do what it takes to keep their team in more games than others, even if they have the same ERA as those "others." I don't totally discount W-L and win%, but to me wins and losses have so much to do with batting (run support) defense (fielding support) and other things like baserunning, managerial decisions and other things like park factors, strength of opponents and just plain luck (like catching a mediocre pitcher having a great night or a really bad night and timing.) I don't disagree that more and more people have turned away from looking almost exclusively at Wins, losses and ERA with maybe a little at WHIP and towards modern metrics to help them determine who are the ":better" pitchers, but I think fans have always looked beyond just traditional stats to try and adjust their idea of who is better. Often it was based more on eye test and just knowing this pitcher had better run support or defense that that other guy. Now, there is data to help us see the differences in a more objective and fact-based light- knowing full well that no metric is perfect.

That makes sense. I'm not sure the RP'ing starts and stops have changed all that much in the past decade or two, and the extra roster slot, who is always a 13th pitcher, has helped mitigate the expanded IP'd by relievers, so I'm not sure this has affected them all that much. Sp'er treatment has changed radically: I agree. It seems counterintuitive to say not allowing pitchers to go longer into games is causing more injuries, but who knows? There is no denying more major injuries are happening to mostly SP'ers. The common reasons given seem to be based on these two issues: The asking them to apply a higher spin rate or add more velocity, because we will pitch you less, and assuming it evens out. The pitch clock that hurries their pitches one right after another. I'm not disagreeing with your point about babying pitchers might be part of the issue, but I do think that asking for more spin and or more velocity is the opposite of babying.

Nobody has ever argued fangraphs or any advanced metrics change a W-L record.

Yes, I'm assuming, but I'm basing my assumptions on facts and data and making an educated guess. You just dismiss my position summarily without any counter evidence or even anecdotal or eye test reasonings given. You won't even answer the simplest of questions, like do you really think having people with lower OBPs ahead of you will give you the same or more RBI opportunities than when having players with higher OBps ahead of you? I would like to guess I know you know the answer but just don't want to admit it, but then I look back at all your silliness and have to wonder that you don't accept facts, data and reality.

You have argued that wins is a major component of evaluating a pitcher, right? If I am wrong, I apologize ahead of time.

The first thing you look at is not "major?" More silliness. BTW, "major" does not mean even majority. It just means important. I know you struggle with the true meanings of words, so maybe this will help.

Let's hope there is no Beuhler's day off.

..and they act like it's us that don't get the difference.

You and others have stressed that wins is a major stat in evaluating how good a SP'er is. It is you, not a strawman. I have never claimed you and others think it is the only stat. You further prove you don't understand the concept of "strawman," once again.

Nick, I posted this on another thread, and maybe it's what you wanted from me on the rotation. I will add that I strongly advocated for signing Fried as that "second ace" I've ranted about for years and years (Pedro-Schilling, Beckett-Schilling, Lester-Lackey, Sale-Price.) I was fine with Buehler, and he certainly looked better than Kluber, Richards, Perez and even Wacha, but I'd have preferred better. I see a lot of promise in our rotation, especially when healthy or mostly healthy. I think it's better than our ERA ranking indicates, and some metrics show this to be true. Crochet is a top 5 or 6 starter in just about every meaningful stat and metric (not winning%, so some must think he's a loser.) Houck is the big issue. He went from our ace to a huge question mark, and is currently on the IL until the end of June or July. Without something from him, going forward, it puts a lot of strain on the others to pitch like a starter a slot ahead of them. Buehler is the guy I think we can hope becomes the solid #2, again, if he can stay healthy. He has looked pretty good, so far, and I don't think it's a stretch to think he will improve. Bello has always been sort of up and down on how we view his future. He certainly has the ability to be a solid #3 or really good #4, and maybe has #2 potential, but he's been kinda lucky, this year and still has not done all that great. Crawford may not be back until August, and even if he does return, what will he pitch like. He is a good starter, but I'm counting on nothing from him in 2025. Sandoval is the in the same boat as Crawford. He's probably our 3rd or 4th best pitcher, when totally healthy, but he is not healthy. Giolito was a damn good pitcher, quite a few years ago. He's showed flashes of that, here and there, but gives no indication he can do it for a 4 month stretch, which is what we need. Dobbins and Fitts give us good promise, but it is hard to really know how good they are and can be. Batters will adjust to their pitches, and they may need to do just that to continue to look as good as they have been in their small sample sizes of 2025. Criswell, Wink and Penrod are on the 40 and could start. I don't want to mention Whitlock, because I hope his starting days are over. Wink and Penrod seem better in the pen. Criswell has recently shown he's better as a starter. Maybe he could give us a spark. All-in-all, I see 8-10 starters that all offer some level of hope and have already shown they can be good pitchers for certain periods of times. In today's game, where pitchers get TJS on a weekly basis, this is a big plus and could give us an edge over other teams, when their starters start dropping like flies. I've always valued Quality over quantity, but quantity is important, and many of those 8-10 starts have shown they can be quality pitchers. a happen now When exactly do you mean?

Do you mean that maybe with the pitching clock, there is less time between innings, and not enough refresh time for a pitcher's arm between innings? The time between starts has remained unchanged since the 4 man rotation went out of style. IP's and Pitch counts have gone down.

So, this put you in the camp of thinking Crochet is a mediocre starter. Talk about nonsense. You continue to crack me up. literally, I'm laughing out loud, and my wife is asking me about what.

I've already agreed, it's impossible to know for sure, and even if we plugged in the actual 2025 OBPs of who would have batter in front of Devers, and who would have taken Devers' 2 slot (or who bats 3rd if Bregman bats 2nd) butI think it is 100% safe to say, they'd have gotten on base more than Rafaela's 192 PAs (8th and 9th slot) Narvaez (120) and a mix of DHam, Wong and others (100 or so.) Do you actually doubt this notion, in general? There is no certainty on projected numbers for either side of the argument, but you are the only one claiming that if I cannot prove my position, I must be wrong. It's just plain silly, to me, to think Devers has had more rbi opportunities with Duran, Rafaela, Narvaez and DHam ahead of him that he would have gotten with Bregman, Abreu/Ref and Duran ahead of him. Why don't you give just one reason why you think this would not be true?

We do accept the facts. We don't accept that Crochet is mediocre.