SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
4/14-4/17 Red Sox vs. Rays Series Thread
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 17, 2017 19:46:31 GMT -5
"Performing in high-pressure situations" is one of those skills that being a professional athlete selects for. By the point they reach the majors, the vast majority of players are clustered around a narrow band. Even if that is a skill that a team can and wants to develop, I think this was a situation where maximizing the odds of winning the game is more important than developing Taylor's pressure mindset. Taylor was never regarded as a closer-in-waiting (his SP.com profile describes him as a "potential...sixth-inning relief option"). Given the likelihood that he never ends up pitching regularly in high-leverage situations, not sure it's critical to give him high-leverage opportunities at the cost of putting a worse pitcher on the mound. There are a host of unforseen conditions that works against your premise. Injuries to the current bullpen alignment, underperformance of existing bullpen options, overusage (either in short term or long term bullpen mgt) brought on by a series of close games, to name a few. Part of a manager's job is to see where the limitations of his players exist, and where he can feel comfortable using his pieces to provide the best outcome on any given night. Even if the information gathered won't be applicable on a nightly basis because of performance randomness, I don't think a manager hurts his team at all by seeing where a guys confidence and performance level exists. I mean if rookies, in particular, can't gain that experience (audition) how can you tell what his performance level is? The thought of whether it is skill to be developed is probably the last thing on the organization's mind. Think of it in terms of an apprenticeship.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 17, 2017 20:36:37 GMT -5
An apprenticeship works by gradually giving someone more and more responsibility. This is the opposite of that. This is giving the highest-leverage situation to a guy just called up from AAA (and a guy who was optioned back down immediately after the game). There are plenty of ways to gauge a player's performance level other than that. Their performance in the minors or lower-leverage situations in the majors, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 17, 2017 21:29:21 GMT -5
An apprenticeship works by gradually giving someone more and more responsibility. This is the opposite of that. This is giving the highest-leverage situation to a guy just called up from AAA (and a guy who was optioned back down immediately after the game). There are plenty of ways to gauge a player's performance level other than that. Their performance in the minors or lower-leverage situations in the majors, for instance. Like having a rookie take over at third in the playoffs? Or having a rookie bat second moving a former MVP to a different position in the lineup? Not that Taylor is Xander or Benintendi, but sometimes it makes sense to use rookies and untested players in key positions. Taylor has performed well, both in the minors, in spring training, and during his limited sample size to start the year. The only reason he was sent down was because of the lack of players with options in the pen. If Abad had options, I'm sure he wouldn't be on this team.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 17, 2017 21:58:16 GMT -5
Not that Taylor is Xander or Benintendi Just wanted to quote the most important part of your post. The reason those guys played was because, based on their minor league performance, scouting reports, and major league performance, they were clearly the best option for the major league club at the time. Ben Taylor is... not.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 17, 2017 22:52:39 GMT -5
As long as we have options to play with (when Thornburg or Smith are ready), it makes more sense to hold onto Abad until a LOOGY trade becomes a possibility or until their hand is forced. As a LOOGY, he has a decent history and we should be able to get a decent lower level lotto ticket for him. In the meantime mop up situations periodically pop up and overall, the pen has been solid even with the injuries & flu and even with Abad taking up a roster spot. Lefties always seem to find a home, Abad is no different. The Sox won the arbitration case, he's not all that expensive.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 17, 2017 23:55:00 GMT -5
An apprenticeship works by gradually giving someone more and more responsibility. This is the opposite of that. This is giving the highest-leverage situation to a guy just called up from AAA (and a guy who was optioned back down immediately after the game). There are plenty of ways to gauge a player's performance level other than that. Their performance in the minors or lower-leverage situations in the majors, for instance. I disagree with you. I had a lot of experience developing people in my several careers and I had the very best results when I put people with talent in situations they never before had experienced. There is a huge psychological and actual difference between pitching in AAA and in the majors, especially in this situation. Yes, he gave up one run but then stopped it. I was following it on Gameday while doing other things but I do recall that last batter fouling off a bunch of pitches before finally flying out. That had to be an enormous confidence booster for the young pitcher. I don't disagree that Hembree is better, but it has taken him a while. At this point, I think it was both a smart and courageous move by Farrell to put the kid in there. It may pay off big time later in the year.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Apr 18, 2017 4:09:10 GMT -5
There are plenty of ways to gauge a player's performance level other than that. Their performance in the minors or lower-leverage situations in the majors, for instance. What if Farrell liked what he saw in both these situations and wanted to see how he would fare in a high leverage situation? It's not like it's completely unlikely he will be better than Hembree, a guy you're defending, as soon as this year.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 18, 2017 5:35:03 GMT -5
There are plenty of ways to gauge a player's performance level other than that. Their performance in the minors or lower-leverage situations in the majors, for instance. What if Farrell liked what he saw in both these situations and wanted to see how he would fare in a high leverage situation? It's not like it's completely unlikely he will be better than Hembree, a guy you're defending, as soon as this year. It's highly unlikely that Taylor will be the straight up replacement for Hembree this year no matter how well he pitches. Taylor has options, Hembree doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Apr 18, 2017 5:47:13 GMT -5
Not that Taylor is Xander or Benintendi Just wanted to quote the most important part of your post. The reason those guys played was because, based on their minor league performance, scouting reports, and major league performance, they were clearly the best option for the major league club at the time. Ben Taylor is... not. The seventh inning in April is also not the World Series, despite agnst in this thread. Taylor has performed well both in the minors and so far this year. I appreciate that Farrell is willing to use more than two pitchers at this point in the season. In years past he has relied upon one or two relievers nearly exclusively, much to the detriment of the team. See Junchi Tazawa.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 18, 2017 7:09:05 GMT -5
I guess ya'll are just a lot higher on Taylor than I am. I see a guy who projects to be maybe a middle reliever, who has very limited experience in the upper minors, who made the roster pretty much solely on the back of a few impressive Spring Training appearances (we know how illusory that can be) and who is no higher than seventh on the right-handed relief pitcher depth chart once Thornburg and Smith are healthy.
Remember, both the front office and the coaching staff has treated him like the emergency taxi guy. He didn't beat out an established MLB guy to get that bullpen spot to start the year-- instead, he received the spot by default due to injuries (beating out, uh, Chandler Shepherd?). Prior to yesterday's game, he'd only received the lowest-leverage appearances (his average leverage index when entering the game of 0.15 would rank last among Red Sox relievers, tied with Fernando Abad). He was optioned once guys started getting healthy and was only called up to take Rodriguez's spot while he was on paternity, and it looks like he will be optioned back down immediately after the game.
If the front office and the coaching staff think he's better than Hembree now and/or has the potential to be, they'd give him Abad's spot on the roster and have used him in higher-leverage spots prior to yesterday's outing. Occam's razor suggests that it's more likely that Farrell just messed up his bullpen usage yesterday as opposed to reaching the sudden epiphany that Ben Taylor is one of his better relievers.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 7:22:35 GMT -5
Couldn't this be a situation where Farrell didn't want to use Hembree for multiple innings? He hadn't pitched since Thursday, but I know at a minimum he had warmed up on Sunday but don't know about any of the other days. Yesterday's appearance was also his 7th in 13 days. Barnes had pitched Thursday, Saturday and Sunday so he likely wasn't available. Joe Kelly threw 2.2 innings the day before.
There's a lot more than just where you are on the depth chart when making a decision on who to come into the game. Taylor may not have been the idea choice but he's on the roster and Farrell told the kid, you're up go get the job done and he did. And it was important because now they used a guy who's no longer taking a roster spot to get them thru a key spot when they have no off days for another week.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 18, 2017 7:29:47 GMT -5
The point I made at the time (see page 10 of this thread) is that Hembree should have been brought in to face the highest-leverage situation in the game in the seventh, and Taylor (along with Scott/Abad, if needed) could have been brought in to face the bottom of the Rays order in the eighth inning. The reason that didn't happen is because John Farrell believes in relatively strict seventh/eighth/ninth inning roles, and Hembree was tabbed for the eighth inning.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 7:31:17 GMT -5
Carry on then...
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 18, 2017 8:38:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 18, 2017 8:56:10 GMT -5
This sounds like the "Barnes is our runners on base specialist" bull. Speier needs to stop encouraging Farrell with bad ideas.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 18, 2017 8:57:24 GMT -5
This sounds like the "Barnes is our runners on base specialist" bull. Speier needs to stop encouraging Farrell with bad ideas. And that sounds like denial.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 18, 2017 9:02:22 GMT -5
This sounds like the "Barnes is our runners on base specialist" bull. Speier needs to stop encouraging Farrell with bad ideas. I'm pretty critical of modern relief usage, but there are definitely guys more comfortable coming into clean innings and some who are just fine coming in with runners on base. It'd take a couple years at least of data to show whether there's anything to it, but leaning on Barnes specifically mid-inning because he prefers to use Kelly and Kimbrel for clean innings doesn't seem like a bad idea on the surface. I don't necessarily think that clean inning should be the ninth inning, of course, and you have to have some flexibility with that. As far as Kimbrel on three consecutive days of work, I don't think the issue with it is on that third day itself - it's the recovery from it. Tazawa would pitch well on consecutive days in the first half and Farrell would lean on him too hard as a consequence. Then he'd be gassed by mid-June. Kimbrel isn't Tazawa in terms of durability concerns, but he's also more important.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 18, 2017 9:05:54 GMT -5
This sounds like the "Barnes is our runners on base specialist" bull. Speier needs to stop encouraging Farrell with bad ideas. I'm pretty critical of modern relief usage, but there are definitely guys more comfortable coming into clean innings and some who are just fine coming in with runners on base. It'd take a couple years at least of data to show whether there's anything to it, but leaning on Barnes specifically mid-inning because he prefers to use Kelly and Kimbrel for clean innings doesn't seem like a bad idea on the surface. I don't necessarily think that clean inning should be the ninth inning, of course, and you have to have some flexibility with that. As far as Kimbrel on three consecutive days of work, I don't think the issue with it is on that third day itself - it's the recovery from it. Tazawa would pitch well on consecutive days in the first half and Farrell would lean on him too hard as a consequence. Then he'd be gassed by mid-June. Kimbrel isn't Tazawa in terms of durability concerns, but he's also more important. Yeah, I agree with that. Farrell decided on it after a couple weeks.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 18, 2017 9:26:58 GMT -5
I mean, you're never going to get that data without trying it. If Barnes is comfortable warming quickly and coming in mid-inning, and there's no reason to think it's specifically sub-optimal given where they are in the lineup, then there's not really a lot of harm that I see. Barnes is probably the second best reliever on the team right now (at least until Thornburg and Smith are ready), and late innings with runners on tend to be high leverage. Having a bullpen arm who you trust more mid-inning seems to me to be a lot more sensible than regimented 7th inning picther, 8th inning pitcher, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Apr 18, 2017 9:29:01 GMT -5
Occam's razor suggests that it's more likely that Farrell just messed up his bullpen usage yesterday as opposed to reaching the sudden epiphany that Ben Taylor is one of his better relievers. IMO it suggests that Farrell looked at him and thought "well let's see what this dude has to gauge his possible future with my squad and since I'm a calm and awesome man who doesn't overreact to stuff I'm okay with the results because if they're good we have another bullpen piece and hey that's always nice" (that's a long thought to have in that moment, one you can only have by being the calm eyed manager Farrell is), to me that's way more likely than the overall idiotic incompetence you're suggesting. Besides, you're talking about Taylor like he was this 35 year old journeyman that had middling numbers in AAA, he's 24 years old and had a nice season last year. He could have a future.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 18, 2017 10:18:06 GMT -5
If Farrell thought that, he should have used Taylor in higher-leverage situations before yesterday, and Taylor should have stuck around on the roster over Abad. It just makes no sense to use the minor league guy who is only up for the day in the highest-leverage situation in a game.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 18, 2017 10:43:45 GMT -5
If Farrell thought that, he should have used Taylor in higher-leverage situations before yesterday, and Taylor should have stuck around on the roster over Abad. It just makes no sense to use the minor league guy who is only up for the day in the highest-leverage situation in a game. Yep. That right there is the problem I have with it. If Taylor's good enough to be used in high leverage, he's better than Abad who I legitimately forgot was on the team yesterday he's been used so infrequently. There's a disconnect between Farrell and Dombrowski RE: Taylor and/or Abad, or Farrell doesn't understand leverage. Or both of those, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 18, 2017 10:44:12 GMT -5
I think James has it right when it comes to usage. It's about recovery, and at multiple time scales. The guy has to be cut some slack after a period of heavy use. It's also a very long season, and moderating that usage pattern is important for the long run, so that the key relievers aren't shredded when the playoffs roll around.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 18, 2017 11:02:30 GMT -5
If Farrell thought that, he should have used Taylor in higher-leverage situations before yesterday, and Taylor should have stuck around on the roster over Abad. It just makes no sense to use the minor league guy who is only up for the day in the highest-leverage situation in a game. Yep. That right there is the problem I have with it. If Taylor's good enough to be used in high leverage, he's better than Abad who I legitimately forgot was on the team yesterday he's been used so infrequently. There's a disconnect between Farrell and Dombrowski RE: Taylor and/or Abad, or Farrell doesn't understand leverage. Or both of those, I guess. Considering how infrequently Abad has been used I'd tend to agree with a disconnect. However, there are situations it makes sense to send down the better reliever. Depth over the course of a season is important and guy's get kept on the roster early in the year all the time because they are out of options and "it's a long season". The situation is irrelevant when you are choosing between the two. All that being said, carrying a guy you won't use isn't increasing your depth it's handcuffing it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 18, 2017 13:23:04 GMT -5
What good is Abad if he's at most a two inning pitcher in garbage time though?
|
|
|