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.
This Sale Valid For a Limited Time Only?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 16, 2017 8:35:24 GMT -5
Here is Chris Sale's career ERA broken down by start number in season (the first line includes his 1 IP in relief, in 2012):
Starts ERA
1-10 2.46
11-15 2.86
16-20 3.20
21-25 3.22
26-30 3.97
There is a statistically significant (r = .41, p < .03) correlation between start number and ERA in that start. In this model, he begins with a 2.18 ERA in start 1 and declines by 0.065 or so each start, so that by the time he's at start 30 he's a 4.08 pitcher.
If you look at cumulative IP to that point in the season at the end of each start, he has a 2.33 career ERA through 70 IP, and it goes up in an almost perfectly straight line (r = .95) until it hits 3.01 at 226.2 IP on the season.
We can use that to refine the regression model by start #, since the trend over his first 9 starts is actually improvement. Replace each of the first 9 data points with the overall average performance over his first 9 starts (5th start, 2.33 ERA) and p is now <.01, with the increase in ERA per start after 9 starts being 0.073. That lifts the start 30 ERA up to 4.18.
History says we're kidding ourselves to think he's any kind of reliable post-season ace. He's had 7 career starts #30 or more and allowed 3 or more ER in 6 of them.
Here are his career totals in starts 1 through 9 versus starts 30 through 32.
G 54 7
IP 374 41
ERA 2.36 5.71
BA .184 .291
OBP .234 .344
SA .285 .521
Str% .669 .646
K% .289 .261
BB% .054 .039
GB% .451 .420
LD% .215 .252
PU% .078 .067
HR/OFB .051 .226
The one modest ray of hope here is that his BB% is actually down despite the big decline in Strike%. This is a guy who's trusting his declining stuff too much, is unwilling to pitch around guys, and as a result is giving up harder contact. In particular, he's being killed by yielding over four times as many homers.
OTOH, if the team already knows this, there's no sign of any compensatory strategy yet.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835 
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 16, 2017 13:50:20 GMT -5
The other ray of hope is that if we can maintain our lead (questionable) he could pitch game 1 of the DS on A LOT of rest. As things line up now, he's due to pitch Tuesday, 9-26 at home against Toronto and then in the last game of the season on Sunday, Oct. 1 against the 'Stros. If we can have him skip that start, he'd be going in game 1 on eight days rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 16, 2017 15:04:48 GMT -5
Scooped from soxscout. This seemed pretty meaningful:
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 16, 2017 15:08:03 GMT -5
The other ray of hope is that if we can maintain our lead (questionable) he could pitch game 1 of the DS on A LOT of rest. As things line up now, he's due to pitch Tuesday, 9-26 at home against Toronto and then in the last game of the season on Sunday, Oct. 1 against the 'Stros. If we can have him skip that start, he'd be going in game 1 on eight days rest. Thanks for checking his schedule -- that was my next step! There's no way he should start that last game ... if it's still meaningful (other than for home field advantage in the DS), we're in trouble. His ERA with 6 to 11 days rest, broken down the same way as above: 11-15, 0.39 (3 starts) 16-20, 1.90 (7 starts, including a bunch after the ASB) 21-25. His 8 2 0 0 1 13 game in Tampa this 8/8. 26-30. A 6 4 1 1 3 10 game on 9/24/14. 31-25. The one good game I mentioned above 7 5 1 1 1 7 on 10/2/15. Extra rest absolutely recharges him, so there's a path to the WS where we win the DS and CS quickly and he gets extra rest for Game 1 of every series. There's a pattern where long rest gives him two good outings before he struggles again. So he'd be good to go for both games 1 and 5 of the DS, but let's look first at the scenario where they win the DS in 4 or less. In that case, in the ALCS you could start him in game 1 (a 7-day rest recharge) and 5 (regular rest), then start him in games 2 and 7 of the WS, each on 6 days rest ... although obviously if you were down 3 games to 2 in the WS, you might pitch him on 5 days rest in game 6, depending on who the other pitcher involved is, and his own days of rest pattern. If Sale wins a game 5 of the ALDS, the temptation will be great to continue pitching him on 4 days rest and use him in 3 and 7 of the ALCS, then 2 and (with 5 days rest) 6 of the WS. However, you might be much better off holding him till game 4 (5 days rest) and then having him start the WS with 6. The extra-rest strategy works if the rest of the rotation steps up. They're not going anywhere without that happening. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 17, 2017 20:35:39 GMT -5
They massively screwed the pooch with the rotation in this series. They started it with Sale and Porcello on 5 days rest each, when they could and should have swapped them, and had Porcello go on 4 days and Sale go on 6.
(You can skip the argument here, since it's moot. Practical stuff starts after the italics.)
-- Porcello has been better on 4 days than on 5 in his career.
-- The 6 days rest helps Sale tremendously and very likely helps his subsequent start.
-- The switch means that Porcello, not Sale, finishes the Orioles series, immediately before the last off day of the season. That allows you to do another swap, if you feel it's a good idea, pitching E-Rod on 4 days rest to start the Cinci series and Sale on 6 after him. You'd make that call depending on how much bite had returned for Sale's slider in his previous start. The way they've done it, Sale is now the last guy to go with 5 days rest and there is no way to get him 6 before season's end without starting Price (starting a bullpen game).
-- Most importantly, it would change the scheduled pitcher for the last day of the season from Sale to Porcello. And the last day of the season is the one place you can't pitch Sale without screwing up the rest of the post-season. If you need that game to clinch the division, and Sale has to pitch it, he's on 4 days rest again and projects to be a 4.40 ERA starter. Then Sale can pitch in the DS only in game 2, and on 4 days rest, where he projects to be 4.47. Whereas if you can win that game with Porcello (who actually gives you a better shot), then Sale either starts the DS on 7 days rest or, if needs be, pitches the WC game on 5. And he should be in top form in the DS if he goes into it on long rest.
That that did not do that swap suggests that no one in the FO did the fatigue analysis I just did ... or (perhaps more likely) JF overrode the FO's advice.
Now, how to fix this? The scheduled pitchers for the last 7 games are:
Pomeranz 5
Sale 5
Porcello 4
Rodriguez 4
Fister 4
Pomeranz 4
[Sale 4]
off
potential WC
off
ALDS 1
ALDS2
off
ALDS 3
ALDS 4
off
ALDS 5
What you have to do here is start Price in game 2 of the final Blue Jay series, as the start of a bullpen game -- he and Kelly can give you 6 very strong innings. Sale then gets an extra day or even two, and projects to be his ace self in his last start and in any WC game.
Assuming they avoid the WC game -- having Sale pitch with 6 and then 7 days rest (or vice versa) may well recharge his batteries almost all the way (there's no historical precedent for that at all). That could make an immense difference in the post-season.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 18, 2017 10:56:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 18, 2017 12:15:40 GMT -5
This is a clever thread title and thank you for crunching the numbers. The innings have to be a concern. However, the slide could also be due to familiarity with some of the clubs he has been facing. He is also very slight, which is why scouts love big guys as starters
I am more concerned with mechanics and location, than his durability or performance. He hasn't every had a prolonged DL stint and his velo is still good. I would wait a bit more to try and derive some conclusion on whether the Sale is valid for a limited time only.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 18, 2017 14:59:52 GMT -5
This is a clever thread title and thank you for crunching the numbers. The innings have to be a concern. However, the slide could also be due to familiarity with some of the clubs he has been facing. He is also very slight, which is why scouts love big guys as starters I am more concerned with mechanics and location, than his durability or performance. He hasn't every had a prolonged DL stint and his velo is still good. I would wait a bit more to try and derive some conclusion on whether the Sale is valid for a limited time only. Pretty much the main reason for his problems is that his slider doesn't break as much later in the year. He shouldn't be throwing it in the strike zone anymore. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 18, 2017 15:34:14 GMT -5
This is a clever thread title and thank you for crunching the numbers. The innings have to be a concern. However, the slide could also be due to familiarity with some of the clubs he has been facing. He is also very slight, which is why scouts love big guys as starters I am more concerned with mechanics and location, than his durability or performance. He hasn't every had a prolonged DL stint and his velo is still good. I would wait a bit more to try and derive some conclusion on whether the Sale is valid for a limited time only. Had Price not gone on the DL, I would have looked at his post-season struggles in the same thread, which would have been "Sale, Price Valid For a Limited Time Only?" And of course if they sign Sale to a huge extension, the top of our rotation will represent the most expensive Sale Price in history. If we re-up Pomeranz, he might want to change his last name to Discount. On a serious note, I think we can eliminate increased familiarity as a factor. He is a guy with a slight build who goes all-out and pitches a huge number of innings because he's good enough to go deep in games. The obvious explanation therefore fits the data. For the next two years, it will really help to figure out how to recharge his batteries after the first third of the season by giving him 6 days rest on occasion. With our SP depth (even if we don't re-sign Fister), that's a luxury we can afford. The downside over one start from Sale to whoever the 6th starter is -- Wright, say -- is more than offset if it shaves 1.50 off of Sale's ERA for the next start or more. Imagine if we saw that first-9-starts Sale all year. Using this year's schedule, you can start giving Sale 6 days rest every third start beginning at that point and still get 32 starts from him, including 6 on 6 days rest. You need 5 starts from a #6 starter. The key is to give him the extra day when there's already an off day. Fortunately, those by design are spread out pretty evenly through the schedule. Essentially, you remove one start from every guy in the rotation and give them to a #6 starter. In return for that downgrade, which is maybe 3 or 4 runs, you add as much as 15 runs and 1.5 wins to Sale's value. He had a 2.19 ERA after 9 starts and is 3.18 since. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 18, 2017 17:09:28 GMT -5
Why do I get the feeling that the Red Sox will not do anything at all but hope that Sale does better without giving him more rest?
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,666
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 18, 2017 18:49:01 GMT -5
Why do I get the feeling that the Red Sox will not do anything at all but hope that Sale does better without giving him more rest? The closer the division race gets the less likely he gets the rest he needs. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 18, 2017 19:10:58 GMT -5
Why do I get the feeling that the Red Sox will not do anything at all but hope that Sale does better without giving him more rest? The closer the division race gets the less likely he gets the rest he needs. There is no situation where they shouldn't give him the rest he needs. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 20, 2017 17:53:13 GMT -5
The key thing about Sale's decline over the season is that it's not an overall decline. There's no change at all in Sale at his best. It's an increase in the percentage and badness of bad starts.
Look at his ERA by stretches of starts, together with the standard deviation (weighted by IP of each start):
Starts ERA SD
1-4 2.85 4.10
5-9 1.99 1.80
10-15 2.96 2.75
16-20 3.20 3.24
21-25 3.22 3.43
26-30 3.97 4.26
He's been tremendously inconsistent in starts 3 and 4 in his career, which is entirely responsible for the statistical trend of his season ERA reaching a low after 9 starts.
You can see that from start 5 onward, there is no change in how well he is capable of pitching, based on the overall ERA minus 1 standard deviation.
But a typical bad start (+1 SD) goes from 3.78 to 8.23.
Which means that any single great outing late in the season means nothing (unless it seems, it was on 6 days rest or more, which is the other thing we're trying to get a handle on.)
After tonight's start I'm going to redo this analysis, looking at the effect of days rest for each start.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Sept 20, 2017 20:24:53 GMT -5
The key thing about Sale's decline over the season is that it's not an overall decline. There's no change at all in Sale at his best. It's an increase in the percentage and badness of bad starts. Look at his ERA by stretches of starts, together with the standard deviation (weighted by IP of each start): Starts ERA SD
1-4 2.85 4.10
5-9 1.99 1.80
10-15 2.96 2.75
16-20 3.20 3.24
21-25 3.22 3.43
26-30 3.97 4.26
He's been tremendously inconsistent in starts 3 and 4 in his career, which is entirely responsible for the statistical trend of his season ERA reaching a low after 9 starts. You can see that from start 5 onward, there is no change in how well he is capable of pitching, based on the overall ERA minus 1 standard deviation. But a typical bad start (+1 SD) goes from 3.78 to 8.23. Which means that any single great outing late in the season means nothing (unless it seems, it was on 6 days rest or more, which is the other thing we're trying to get a handle on.) After tonight's start I'm going to redo this analysis, looking at the effect of days rest for each start. I am sorry, I think you are trying to have it both ways here. The thread title implies that is not as good picture as the season progresses. We are seeing really nasty stuff tonight from him. I made the mention about familiarity because his bad starts were against the Indians (self explanatory) the Yankees and Rays, whom he has faced 5x this year (IIRC). Is there any way you can run those numbers including some level of statistical significance for that. Alternatively, is there history of Sale (or any pitcher) losing production because they faced a team that amount of times? It seems very relevant to me. that is a lot of video and data and crosstalk for teams to have. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2017 11:56:22 GMT -5
The key thing about Sale's decline over the season is that it's not an overall decline. There's no change at all in Sale at his best. It's an increase in the percentage and badness of bad starts. Look at his ERA by stretches of starts, together with the standard deviation (weighted by IP of each start): Starts ERA SD
1-4 2.85 4.10
5-9 1.99 1.80
10-15 2.96 2.75
16-20 3.20 3.24
21-25 3.22 3.43
26-30 3.97 4.26
He's been tremendously inconsistent in starts 3 and 4 in his career, which is entirely responsible for the statistical trend of his season ERA reaching a low after 9 starts. You can see that from start 5 onward, there is no change in how well he is capable of pitching, based on the overall ERA minus 1 standard deviation. But a typical bad start (+1 SD) goes from 3.78 to 8.23. Which means that any single great outing late in the season means nothing (unless it seems, it was on 6 days rest or more, which is the other thing we're trying to get a handle on.) After tonight's start I'm going to redo this analysis, looking at the effect of days rest for each start. I am sorry, I think you are trying to have it both ways here. The thread title implies that is not as good picture as the season progresses. We are seeing really nasty stuff tonight from him. I made the mention about familiarity because his bad starts were against the Indians (self explanatory) the Yankees and Rays, whom he has faced 5x this year (IIRC). Is there any way you can run those numbers including some level of statistical significance for that. Alternatively, is there history of Sale (or any pitcher) losing production because they faced a team that amount of times? It seems very relevant to me. that is a lot of video and data and crosstalk for teams to have. I can totally add that in. But I said that he's capable of being his brilliant self as the season rolls on. It's start-to-start consistency that he loses. A quick and dirty study I just did shows that an inning less of work in a given start is a bit better than a day of rest. An extra day of rest shaves, on average .40 off his ERA, but each average inning (15.8 pitches) above or below his average of 107 pitches shaves (or adds) 0.45 of ERA. That penalty increases by .02 per start. Those numbers will shift in the next version, but the pitch-count effect on his next start is unlikely to go away. Next version should be the last word. -- Fix his ERA for inherited runners in 54 starts. -- Derive a regression for that from K%, BB%, HR/FB, and BABIP. -- Do the regression analysis on each of those rather than ERA, then combine the results at the end. -- Mess around with days rest to see if it's not linear. Test to see if 4 vs 5 days is really significant (by substituting 4.5 for all 4 and 5). Test to see at what point, if any, further rest adds nothing. -- Include start # vs opponent. |
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 21, 2017 13:05:22 GMT -5
This is amazing, and it is hard to distinguish. I think Sale was second going into last night, but breaking 300 Ks has a special appearance (whether its in-game signifance is as great, who knows). The starts and inning difference should matter, too. But with a start or two left, it is close enough that things could change again. |
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 21, 2017 13:53:42 GMT -5
This is amazing, and it is hard to distinguish. I think Sale was second going into last night, but breaking 300 Ks has a special appearance (whether its in-game signifance is as great, who knows). The starts and inning difference should matter, too. But with a start or two left, it is close enough that things could change again. With a race this close, I'm inclined to believe that recency bias will have a strong influence on the voters. With that line of thinking, I imagined Kluber would have the edge, but after Sale's performance last night coupled with reaching the threshold of 300 Ks....it's back to being a toss-up. The last couple of starts may weigh irrationally heavy on the minds of the voters. Should be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Sept 21, 2017 23:11:58 GMT -5
Apparently this Sale has been extended
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 22, 2017 0:42:31 GMT -5
Apparently this Sale has been extended It's true that it's the best August or September game (by Game Score) on regular rest (4 or 5 days) in over two years, since he shut out the Cubs for 7 innings with 2 BB and 15 K on August 16th, 2015. And that came after he had a 6.38 ERA in 4 regular-rest starts after the ASB (actually 6.57, but I'm crediting him for bad inherited runner support). I'm sure the handful of White Sox fans were excited. It's also true that he had a 3.86 ERA the rest of the way, a full run higher than before the bad post-ASB stretch started. That's the point I made above and in the game thread -- these occasional great second-half starts don't seem to have any predictive power at all. They just offset the occasional really bad outings to give him an OK but not ace ERA. Incidentally, his IR support (+ means the bullpen allowed more runs than average pitching would have): 2012 +3.1 2013 +0.3 2014 +1.4 2015 -1.4 2016 -0.4 2017 -3.7 |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 23, 2017 23:49:46 GMT -5
This breakdown is chunked empirically by True ERA (adjusted for inherited runner support) and includes component rates.
Starts ERA K% BB% HRC BABIP
1-9 2.34 .290 .054 .030 .242
10-16 2.70 .290 .047 .033 .305
17-27 3.36 .302 .053 .046 .313
28-32 4.58 .279 .050 .068 .368
There's no change in his BB rate and his K rate actually improves in the second half, until late. But BABIP rises dramatically starting in the second quarter of the season, and HR/Contact takes off in the second half. Both of those trends become exaggerated late in the season.
Next step: influence of total cumulative workload, days rest (including for the previous start), preceding start pitch count, and times facing opponent on those last two factors.
|
|
pd
Rookie
Posts: 239
|
Post by pd on Sept 24, 2017 23:28:16 GMT -5
This breakdown is chunked empirically by True ERA (adjusted for inherited runner support) and includes component rates. Starts ERA K% BB% HRC BABIP
1-9 2.34 .290 .054 .030 .242
10-16 2.70 .290 .047 .033 .305
17-27 3.36 .302 .053 .046 .313
28-32 4.58 .279 .050 .068 .368
There's no change in his BB rate and his K rate actually improves in the second half, until late. But BABIP rises dramatically starting in the second quarter of the season, and HR/Contact takes off in the second half. Both of those trends become exaggerated late in the season. Next step: influence of total cumulative workload, days rest (including for the previous start), preceding start pitch count, and times facing opponent on those last two factors. There's a trend there, but there's also some very small sample sizes. One more good start will really change the last grouping. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 25, 2017 0:52:47 GMT -5
This breakdown is chunked empirically by True ERA (adjusted for inherited runner support) and includes component rates. Starts ERA K% BB% HRC BABIP
1-9 2.34 .290 .054 .030 .242
10-16 2.70 .290 .047 .033 .305
17-27 3.36 .302 .053 .046 .313
28-32 4.58 .279 .050 .068 .368
There's no change in his BB rate and his K rate actually improves in the second half, until late. But BABIP rises dramatically starting in the second quarter of the season, and HR/Contact takes off in the second half. Both of those trends become exaggerated late in the season. Next step: influence of total cumulative workload, days rest (including for the previous start), preceding start pitch count, and times facing opponent on those last two factors. There's a trend there, but there's also some very small sample sizes. One more good start will really change the last grouping. Actually, a shutout would just reduce the true ERA to 4.25. It's 18 starts and 109.2 IP. |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 25, 2017 5:11:57 GMT -5
A quick and dirty study I just did shows that an inning less of work in a given start is a bit better than a day of rest. An extra day of rest shaves, on average .40 off his ERA, but each average inning (15.8 pitches) above or below his average of 107 pitches shaves (or adds) 0.45 of ERA. That penalty increases by .02 per start. Those numbers will shift in the next version, but the pitch-count effect on his next start is unlikely to go away. Yes but does this take into account the morale boost to the team of Sale getting 300 Ks in Baltimore rather than in his next start at home in Boston? Because if not then you'd have to think it was mind-bogglingly foolish of Farrell to send him out for the 8th in his last start. |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 28, 2017 10:02:36 GMT -5
There are no tendencies at all for Sale's K rate to vary as a function of progress through the season, times facing opponent in season, or previous start pitch count.
There are some tendencies for days rest, however. with a significant negative impact of 9+. The odds number is versus the previous line.
DR GS K% Odds
4 74 .307
5 82 .286 0.14
6-8 10 .331 0.12
9+ 7 .225 0.01
There's certainly nothing to worry about when giving him 6 to 8 days rest, and it probably helps. 9+ definitely seems to cut his K rate; even when the 7 starts are compared to the other 166 it's p < .05.
Tomorrow, hopefully, BB rate. Then we'll get to the really important stuff -- HR rate and BABIP.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 30, 2017 23:52:08 GMT -5
I don't have the time to do any further analysis of how you might prevent Sale's second-half fade, by looking at what seems to cause that. The team should be putting all their analytic skill into solving that.
But let's begin with the very reasonable supposition that if you limit his innings to the right degree, from the start of the season, it doesn't happen.
Sale has precisely a 2.50 ERA through his first 16 starts of the season and a 3.01 overall since he became a starter. He's also averaged 215 IP.
Let's pretend you have figured out that if you limit him to X innings instead of 215, he stays a 2.50 ERA pitcher all year.
The obvious question is, what ERA do you need in the missing innings to break even?
Let's say you start Sale every sixth game and limit him to 6 innings religiously. That's 27 starts instead of 32, and it's 162 innings. Let's say he goes 7 three times because his pitch count is low, because that gets you to 165 and gives you an even 50 innings that will have to be pitched by someone else. Of those 50 innings, 30 will be pitched by your 6th starter and 20 by your bullpen.
You break even if you get a 4.71 ERA in those 50 innings. You should be able to beat that easily. Our bullpen last year had a 3.15 ERA, and you'll be using your real good ones to pitch the 7th that Sale would have pitched last year, so that 3.15 figure for the 20 relief innings is conservative. Even with that, you break even if the 6th starters, in the 5 starts you've taken away from Sale to keep him Sale, put up merely a 5.75 ERA.
And as a bonus, you get a 2.50 ERA Sale in the post-season instead of a 4.60 guy (yes, that's how bad the fade has been).
Now, in reality, Sale has had a 2.34 ERA through his first 9 starts and then started his fade, putting up a 2.70 in starts 10 through 16. So this may be a conservative estimate of how much you gain by preventing the fade.
The conclusion: if minimizing his innings will significantly reduce his season-long fade, that's a win. If minimizing the innings will eliminate the fade, it's pure magic.
And of course they have six quality starters if everyone remains healthy, and if they don't, numerous guys who should be able to put up a 5.75 ERA. I go with a 6-man rotation when everyone is healthy and spot the 6th guy (Johnson, Velazquez, etc.) whenever someone is on the DL, with Sale getting one more day of rest than everyone else.
|
|
|
