|
Post by buffs4444 on Feb 25, 2013 19:54:32 GMT -5
He's beyond the 18-month window, not sure why they wouldn't cap him similar to the limits the Nats used for Strasburg and Zimmerman in 2012/2011 respectively (~160IP). Strict pitch counts (<100p/s) becomes more feasible with a quality swingman like Aceves in the pen, and you'd be looking at riding him through August and then shutting him down and bringing up Webster/Barnes for their look.
Recovery is all dependent on the quality of rehab nowadays, so if he's been putting in quality time to get ready, no reason he couldn't be the #5 in the right circumstances and with the right controls. But, that's if he's as special as some believe and if he is/has been putting in the work to earn it.....
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 25, 2013 21:32:36 GMT -5
He's never topped 110 innings. They're never going to let him pitch 160 in his first season since TJ
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Feb 25, 2013 22:35:35 GMT -5
He's never topped 110 innings. They're never going to let him pitch 160 in his first season since TJ This. If he had pitched 150-160 innings, or so, in a season in the past, they would likely have a higher innings limit for him, but he had never pitched that much before TJ surgery.
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on Feb 25, 2013 22:55:22 GMT -5
So would this mean the ideal situation would be 130-140 this year? Maybe shoot for 160-170 in 2014 and go from there?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 25, 2013 23:16:05 GMT -5
I'm sure the team's willing to play it by ear to some extent, but I don't think they'll just assume he's good for 130+ innings till they see how he progresses in game situations once the season starts. He's got serious potential and they won't want to push him. That said, it's not inconceivable that he pitches efficiently enough so that they stretch hm beyond the 100-110 inning limit. I think we'll all have a better feel for this in a month or so.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 26, 2013 2:44:30 GMT -5
How does everyone think they'll split those innings? 2-3 inning piggy back starts to begin the season, and then full starts if things look good?
Part of me wants him to be able to last an entire season which would mean only short stints, but another part of me wants to see what he's capable of/can handle in full starts even if it means shutting him down in July/August
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 26, 2013 7:52:09 GMT -5
I think Farrell at one point said that around 130innings sounds about right. My biggest concern is that Rubby gets pidgeon holed as a reliever. People say that they will give him every oppurtunity to start, but if he's un-hittable in Pawtucket and they call him up to Boston it will most likely start in a bullpen role with the Papelbon innitiation role. If he has success in the pen, people will be leary about switching him back to a starter because of the Bard and Joba fiasco's. Not to mention, he already has the stuff to be a dominant reliever, if he's only throwing 2 inning stints all season we'll never see what he has going 5 or 6. Look at another former TJ pitcher, Tazawa. He was a decent minor league starter, went had TJ surgery and comes back and never gets another chance as a starter.
I know these are all individual cases, but I think it's dangerous only limiting him to short stints all season. It's funny what desperation does to a team and if the bullpen has some injuries or is inneffective, they'll look for reinforcements somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 26, 2013 10:41:20 GMT -5
I also read the club will be happy with 120-130 innings. That'd be something like 5 innings per start if he made 25 starts.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Feb 26, 2013 11:03:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Feb 26, 2013 13:24:14 GMT -5
I somewhat agree. As if baseball isn't complicated enough I'd rather have a "stress formula" consisting of pitches thrown, pitches per inning, pitches per day and possibly even type of pitch thrown. A six pitch inning isn't the same as a 25 pitch inning and assuming they average each other out okay but not exactly perfect.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Feb 26, 2013 13:43:25 GMT -5
If Hanrahan and Bailey flame out, this kid might look real good as our closer.
Don't have to worry too much about going over 75 innings per full season.
|
|
|
Post by leo on Feb 26, 2013 15:40:35 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, why are both Rubby and Webster a 3-6 (translates to 30-60 on a scale from 20 to 80 if I understand correctly), whereas from all I've heard and read, both of them have the stuff to be aces? Barnes can only generate swing and misses with his Fastball so far, and is 3-7, whereas Rubby and Webster have tremendous secondary offerings, something that Barnes is lacking. And Webster in particular is only pitching since late High School, so there is tons of room for development.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 26, 2013 17:24:20 GMT -5
Excellent article, and required reading for anyone commenting on this issue. I don't really get the obsession with innings. I'd rather see RDLR throw 150 innings without going over 95 pitches than 50 innings with several 130+ pitch starts.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 26, 2013 17:25:46 GMT -5
OK, I don't think anyone is saying it's really as simple an innings count (at least I'm not). It's more of an analog of what they're actually keeping tabs on.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 26, 2013 17:40:23 GMT -5
It's why I used the word efficiency in my previous post. It has to be about pitch count, not just innings. De La Rosa had a rep for periodic bouts of wildness and he is coming off TJ surgery. But if he's throwing a bunch of innings at 15 pitches or less, you can bet the team will adjust accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 26, 2013 18:06:13 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, why are both Rubby and Webster a 3-6 (translates to 30-60 on a scale from 20 to 80 if I understand correctly), whereas from all I've heard and read, both of them have the stuff to be aces? Barnes can only generate swing and misses with his Fastball so far, and is 3-7, whereas Rubby and Webster have tremendous secondary offerings, something that Barnes is lacking. And Webster in particular is only pitching since late High School, so there is tons of room for development. Specific discussion of the SoxProspects grades, rankings, etc. should go into the meta forum. But just to pump the brakes a little bit, you should read this article by John Sickels on what scouts really mean by a number one starter or "ace." Short version: there are not much more than a half-dozen true aces in baseball at any given time, and giving Webster/De La Rosa the ceiling of a number two pitcher (which is what a grade of 6 means per the SP.com prospect rating scale) shouldn't be taken as an insult. While both Webster and De La Rosa have tremendous stuff, they've both had significant problems with control, which limits their ceilings.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 26, 2013 19:59:46 GMT -5
I love how everyone in baseball just decides to adopt new thing like innings limits and pitch counts based off of pretty much nothing. The Nationals blew it with Strasberg last year, I hope the Red Sox are smarter if ever in that spot.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 26, 2013 20:04:05 GMT -5
I love how everyone in baseball just decides to adopt new thing like innings limits and pitch counts based off of pretty much nothing. The Nationals blew it with Strasberg last year, I hope the Red Sox are smarter if ever in that spot.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 26, 2013 20:50:18 GMT -5
I love how everyone in baseball just decides to adopt new thing like innings limits and pitch counts based off of pretty much nothing. The Nationals blew it with Strasberg last year, I hope the Red Sox are smarter if ever in that spot.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Feb 26, 2013 22:26:48 GMT -5
He's never topped 110 innings. They're never going to let him pitch 160 in his first season since TJ This. If he had pitched 150-160 innings, or so, in a season in the past, they would likely have a higher innings limit for him, but he had never pitched that much before TJ surgery. Neither Zimmerman (106) nor Strasburg (109) had more than 110IP before they had TJ. In their first full season back, with both outside the 18-month recovery window as RDLR is, both had no issues getting to that 160 level. Nothing says he has to get to that level, that he should be pushed to that limit, or anything of that nature. Only that the 160IP is an absolute cap in the event that he were to win a spot at the back of the rotation and completely exceed expectations.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 26, 2013 22:39:06 GMT -5
Strasburg went 98, 109, 123 from 08-10. Zimmerman had 133 in 08
|
|
|
Post by leo on Feb 26, 2013 23:26:23 GMT -5
Specific discussion of the SoxProspects grades, rankings, etc. should go into the meta forum. But just to pump the brakes a little bit, you should read this article by John Sickels on what scouts really mean by a number one starter or "ace." Short version: there are not much more than a half-dozen true aces in baseball at any given time, and giving Webster/De La Rosa the ceiling of a number two pitcher (which is what a grade of 6 means per the SP.com prospect rating scale) shouldn't be taken as an insult. While both Webster and De La Rosa have tremendous stuff, they've both had significant problems with control, which limits their ceilings. Makes sense, I guess 6 sounds worse than it is. Then again, listening to what e.g. Pedro has to say, De La Rosa's "ceiling" seems like that of a #1 starter. He has very special stuff (so does Webster) that IMHO warrants a higher ceiling than a #2 starter. I'm sure Pedro and Farrell would both agree on that. Even more so in light of a comparison with Barnes.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 26, 2013 23:45:41 GMT -5
Neither Zimmerman (106) nor Strasburg (109) had more than 110IP before they had TJ. In their first full season back, with both outside the 18-month recovery window as RDLR is, both had no issues getting to that 160 level. Innings pitched in seasons prior to TJ, college and pros: Strasburg: 97.1 (2008), 109 (2009), 123 (2010; partial season) Zimmermann: 131 (2007), 134 (2008), 100 (2009; partial season) De La Rosa: 16.1 (2009), 110.1 (2010), 100.2 (2011; partial season)
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Feb 27, 2013 7:35:20 GMT -5
In a Prospect throwdown between Webster , De La Rosa and Barnes if you had to take one who would it be. Thankfully the sox get them all, but just for the fun of it....
Personally I'd take Rubby, even after TJ surgery he's already shown he can get major league hitters out, he's passed the Pedro smell test and I like the fastball (at least more than Barnes). I think he's the most likely to contribute at a high level.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 27, 2013 8:44:42 GMT -5
Personally, Barnes would come in 3rd on my list, but we are talking about 3 good prospects. The control issues don't lower their ceilings, it lowers their likelihood of getting there. Give me the two guys with better stuff (i.e. better movement and secondary pitches especially good change ups ) who've reached the upper minors over the guy with good fastball command, but no real change up.
To me it's no real contest as to which guys have greater upside and probably higher floors considering where they are in the system. Right now Barnes throws a relatively flat fastball with good velocity which he commands well; a curve that has great action but isn't thrown with the same movement as his fastball and a fairly lousy change up. That's a guy who screams bust potential at AA and up. We really need to see how he does in the upper levels before putting him above Ruby and Webster and where he is now his ceiling is lower.
|
|