5GoldGlovesOF,75

I'm not a pitcher, but have to give them more credit than any teammate of any team win. A starting pitcher who gets through five innings with the lead induces opposing batters into making 15 outs. Maybe he has a great defense behind him that catches line drives and gappers and turns DPs every frame. But the fact is, if a starter keeps his club in the game by throwing 50 pitches on average, he touches the ball 50 times when play is in session, and the ball is "live." As an outfielder, I might touch a live ball once an inning (sometimes nonce). In those five innings, I may bat twice. Even if I make one nice running catch, or on O score and/or drive in runs, the pitcher has done more to earn the W than I have...

How cardboard of you. But I have to say, I liked them better when they were horizontal, than on my radiation screen.

Nothing Sale does on the mound should surprise anyone -- but it will be very ironic if this over-30 slinger ever stays healthy for his first full season since... when... 2017?

The Casasesesss keep coming... https://nesn.com/2024/02/red-sox-sluggers-brother-silences-troll-with-long-home-run/

I actually like OPS better to judge pitchers than batters. I want my best hitters hitting and sluggers slugging -- not being overly selective and taking many bases on balls -- because walks can only ever advance baserunners one base at a time. Devers walking all year won't help much if all we have behind him is Story striking out. Of course, we don't want guys flailing out of the zone, but we also know certain hand-eye specialists can consistently blast neck-high fastballs out of the park (see Pedroia, Dustin).

As a batter, that ruling on bunts always bugged me. If I bunt a guy over, and just jog to first, I'd get credit for a sac bunt and no at bat to hurt my average. But I'm running fast, that must mean I'm trying to beat it out -- like get on base, which is always a batter's duty -- so, sorry: no sac for you... and an AB against my BA.

Nice recap. I think most Sox fans would take a JBJ career from Rafaela (though not as many on this forum). I've never seen any outfielder better at getting jumps than Jogging Jackie (when his pursuit after a fly went into a jog -- no matter where the ball was -- it meant he had a bead on it). But my sense is that Ceddanne has more potential for all-around impact on offense.

The era of openers necessitates a change in how wins are awarded to pitchers on victorious teams. How many starters even finish five innings with a lead these days? Maybe a stat man can dig that up, but I'd wager the number is less than half from 50 years ago (maybe even the turn of this century). But even ERA can be considered unreliable, based on several questionable hits awarded by official scorers on grounders just to Raffy Devers last season. The most valuable stat for modern pitchers seems to be innings pitched... though even that is often out a moundsman's control -- from Dice K to Bearclaw.

Marv tried blurting, "Screened by the defenseman!" ... but it was too much of a mouthful.

Decades ago, when I covered NHL hockey, an old scribe sitting next to me in the press box insisted the league should keep track of and list won-loss records of goalies. He argued their value was akin to pitchers in baseball... especially in the playoffs. I noted not all goalie wins are the same, especially when some victors save twice as many (or more) shots on goal than others, depending on the support of his defenders and the firepower of opponents' offense. So... I just looked up the NHL record for most saves in a playoff game. Most ever is by Joonas Korpisalo, Columbus Blue Jackets: 85 saves in 2020. Next is Igor Shesterkin, New York Rangers, 2022: 79. Both came in overtime games. Both lost.

In the past two seasons, the Red Sox have had winning records in the first half of each, and losing records in the second half of each. Overall, 78-win seasons are bad because you lost more than you won... not horrible, but the 9-19 finish last year was certainly horrible, as was team defense for six months. Some may say it was coincidence, but the players didn't perform as well after not getting the help many requested at the trading deadlines. Others may say the boys surrendered after the men in the front office gave up on them. Last year's end was even more depressing, after Cora somehow coaxed a 15-8 July out a group with literally three starting pitchers. Anyone doubting he'll get a nice contract to manage somewhere should remember that feat, plus the two weeks of late summer 2021 when he kept the club in the hunt, despite half the roster out with Covid.

Just looked up Tommy John -- not in the Hall, unlike 9 of his 10 comps on bb-ref's list of Similar Pitchers. That should be on his side, and the fact his name may be more common than Babe Ruth's in modern daily baseball-speak... Plus, the 1 of 10 comps not in Cooperstown is Tony Mullane -- probably because he was from Ireland with an Italian name; too much punching himself in the head.

How many games were won by underwear mogul Tommy John?

I predicted 78 the past three years (and was way wrong in '21). If they sign Monty, I'd like to pick the over this season. If they don't and get off to a bad start, then Brez winds up trading anyone over-30, they'll sink way under.

Breslow keeps reminding us it's not all about 2024 -- but I keep reminding him that's a good reason to sign Montgomery. Starting pitching isn't going to get cheaper next winter or the one after that. If the Red Sox are truly determined to change their culture of pitching, they know they need to use ALL their resources, and not just rely on the magical mystical Bailey. They could employ the greatest pitching coaches in history, force Leo Mazzone and Dave Duncan out of retirement, and use a Squeegie board to consult the ghost of Johnny Sain (and pray for clarity)... but they'll still need to PAY for good starting pitchers with funds and trade capital.

Fatse: "Yoshida! Hit the ball in the air! You might be better than we think... even after you retire!"

- 100 points for not facing African American pitchers or fielders from the mainland or Caribbean islands - 50 for not playing mostly night games in the dark - 50 for not facing fresh-armed relievers in late innings + 100 for facing only the best 70 pitchers from 7 teams pre-expansion, pre-interleague (as opposed to 300 more current pitchers who would never be good enough to make the majors) + 50 for playing in a time when baseball was truly the national pastime, and the majority of professional athletes played big league baseball + 50 for batting eye and contact skills honed in an era that condoned and encouraged PEPPPER -- and didn't ban it in every ballpark with a metal fence at every level in the US! .406 - 200 + 200 = .406

It changes everything -- more depth and rest in the bullpen, less stress on the coaching staff, more smiles in the clubhouse, less whining, more winning... The thing is, if fans realize this, than so does the front office. So why hasn't it happened?

I actually knew ERod had the best year in that span, but probably included Eovaldi's extra decimal points worth of WAR for the Sox in 2018. I've always been suspicious of WAR, and not just because it's a stat that any baseball fan, even diehards, can ever calculate -- like batting average (that's one thing BA is good for). But did you know some historical WAR values have changed? Mookie once had a 10.6 when he was MVP in Boston, but now he has a 10.7 from that year (supposedly, bb-ref updated some ballpark factors a few years back). And then they tell us we can't compare players with decimal points -- or even one or two whole numbers... Kell made the Hall. Not so for Alex Johnson, who beat out Yaz for the 1970 batting crown by 3/1000ths of a point. Carl was guest speaker at our Little League awards night that winter and told us when he lost the batting title he cried. Finally, it was virtually all local media who've said and complained this winter that the Red Sox are perceived across the industry as no longer interested in spending big on top free agents. And it's not just Felger and Mazz or Tomase, but Boston Globe beat reporter Pete A, and even a source as reputable as Alex Speier. But as Gammons noted today, there's still hope...

Not disparaging you -- it's just exhausting every time typing a post to have to carefully proof-read every single word to make sure it can't be twisted by the same reader ever-ready to jump all over it. Exhibit E: when I said "for the four years of his extension" I now know I should've said INSTEAD "for the four years of his extension compared to every other Red Sox who also pitched in all four years -- no wait -- "in each of those four years." You never liked the Eovaldi extension because he was injury-prone. I always liked it because I saw his potential to be a top of the rotation guy when healthy. I actually liked it more than the Sale extension -- and not because of the money, but because he looked more damaged, judging by the end of 2018. As for ERod, his delivery-time bugged me, but not as much as Price, who intentionally took a year between pitches to upset batters' timing his meatballs. But I have nothing against ERod -- and remember how great he and Nate looked in Florida in 2020 right before the pandemic lockdown. Instead, Houck was the best pitcher for throwing three games September. And by the way, we're both idiots for even trying to compare WAR decimal points -- at least according to bb-ref: "you should not take any full-season difference between two players of less than one to two wins to be definitive"

I'd like to think part of that plus will include eating plenty of innings to save other arms and keep a lot of relievers effective enough for some postseason runs.

Just ask Red Sox Nation how they feel about Eovaldi's time in Boston. I'll bet most don't even know his AAV and could care less. Like I said, during his extension he led the team in WAR for the four years he pitched. But you're right, oh mighty spitter of stats onto every post, ERod did have the single best WAR season in one of those Eovaldi years, even though he didn't throw a single pitch for Boston in half of the total Eovaldi years. But we always have to use specific semantics to defend any talk on talksox lest someone jumps all over our posts with statistics to prove how wrong we all are -- as a good poster like Dewey recently alluded to without naming names -- as the reason only a few gluttons for punishment even bother posting here anymore.

This is a good question, and yesterday I was thinking the same thing about Giolito this year -- with this season's Sox D... ... he looked ok because he gave up some weak contact to infielders... luckily,. Devers made a really nice play on a slow roller and great throw for the out.

You can use all the quantitatives you want to back up your opinions. But know that numbers won't change how many, many Boston fans feel about the qualitatives... ... Nathan Eovaldi will always be a Red Sox hero just for beating the Yankees in two postseasons. And even if Nate spends this whole next season on the IL in Texas, I'll bet Rangers fans will always consider him a hero, as well.

You of all posters refuting the cold hard data? Try as you like to win arguments by putting words into the fingertips of typists who never typed them, I only said -- here, I'll paste it again: "they paid market value for a starting pitcher who led their staff in WAR for the four years of his extension." It's a fact, and you can look it up on baseball-reference. I never mentioned Sale or luck because everyone knew he was damaged goods at the time Dombrowski got himself fired for something John Henry said he agreed with... until he didn't.