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.
Red Sox FA Target: Garrett Richards (Signed)
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jan 24, 2021 8:24:30 GMT -5
You are probably right on JBJ however, I could see a scenario where they go over the luxury tax by a small amount to bring back Bradley. If they are competing for the playoffs it'll be worth it go over the tax. If they aren't competitive at the deadline trade whoever is needed to get back under the tax. Of course you sign JBJ and go a bit over the tax. Why did they sign Richards? To contend, as they have always said they plan to. So we stop adding necessary parts now?
Furthermore, going a bit over the tax limit probably pays for itself (in the long run) by tickets bought by people who suddenly wake up and realize that the Sox have not suddenly become a penny-pinching team (and are not running Baseball Ops out of the basement of a pizza place).
And if you contend, well, that's what it took. If it all goes south and you're not contending, you trade some folks to get under. Trading Richards and Barnes at the All-Star break would save you $7M.
Will they contend? I have never seen a Sox team with a rotation that collectively had such a large range out of outcomes. If they're right about the upsides of Houck, Pivetta, and Richards, and E-Rod, Eovaldi and eventually Sale all pitch as well as they have proven they are capable of pitching -- that's a crazy good rotation. I don't think I need to spell out the opposite (especially since manfred will do that for me! Said with affection). They found themselves in a position where the smart thing to do was to try to strike gold with upside guys. Last year they were limited to doing it with waiver claims. This year they've been able to shop more upscale.
And of course Benny, Dalbec, JDM, Arroyo, and maybe Devers' defense all have big outcome ranges among the position players. No wonder why the optimists and pessimists are living on different planets! It's going to be an incredibly interesting season.
That sign the JBJ horse now has had all the life snuffed out of it after the Richards deal. Chances were not good after the season, were really low after the Hernandez sign and almost gone totally now, even if Benny is moved for pennies on the dollar value wise. 1 more reliever (good one) a must and if some type of CF is required? It's not absolutely written in stone a lefty swinger has to be brought in, especially when it would require that person being over paid in both terms of dollars and years. Teams generally like to have some wiggle room at the deadline and I'm of the thought this team will require a lot of breaks to be good, throwing away cash and getting into back over the cap 1y early is wrong headed and would be a mistake, only way I see that happening is if by chance boston finds themself in contention in July and needs to acquire pieces, which predict will be the same hole they have now.. Relievers. Feel free to remind me of what have written. i own mistakes have made prediction wise and don't attempt to run away from them and myself? Think the Richards sign was not the worst Kluber fallback option, especially since if he does a decent job and they are out of it he will be worth something at the break with that 2022 option.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2021 10:10:37 GMT -5
“We have a good Captain,” said the passengers of the Titanic from April 10 to April 14, 1912. I’m not saying the iceberg is coming... I’m just saying it is generous to say so part of the way through off-season two coning off of what was a 100-loss pace season. It's just so silly - or disingenuous - to take last year's "100-loss pace" as the baseline when the pitching staff was completely in tatters, in part due to a once-in-a-century pandemic. It was a staff composed like entirely of middle relievers. And even despite themselves they started to pitch decently toward the end of the season as the team's building depth started to emerge - they were 12-9 at the end, a full third of the season.
The offense should be reliable. The pitching has a huge range of possible outcomes, but could be genuinely good. It should be an interesting team to root for!
Covid was not why last year’s staff was in tatters... it cost one guy. Sale was out for an elbow. They dumped Price. And then it was what it was because that was the roster they chose to go with. It’s fine to say last year was a *little* fluky, but the only guy who was a surprise absence was ERod. Going into the year with Godley, Weber etc as the staff was the plan coming out of spring because money was the priority. They wanted to get under the tax no matter what because that was the plan. So it is actually disingenuous to suggest last year’s disaster wasn’t the outcome of conscious decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2021 10:41:28 GMT -5
You forgot Mchugh. That's three potential starters. The virus likely had something to do with Sale's decision also (the proper one in my view). I agree the team decided to drag the bottom of the bin but they weren't given much choice when it all came down.
They definitely took advantage of the fallout to forgoe spending. But think about what the alternative would have looked like. Every potential addition would have been holding all the negotiating cards. That's not the best market to compete in.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2021 10:49:52 GMT -5
You forgot Mchugh. That's three potential starters. The virus likely had something to do with Sale's decision also (the proper one in my view). I agree the team decided to drag the bottom of the bin but they weren't given much choice when it all came down. They definitely took advantage of the fallout to forgoe spending. But think about what the alternative would have looked like. Every potential addition would have been holding all the negotiating cards. That's not the best market to compete in. McHugh was part of the bottom dragging... a 1/$600k deal for a guy who was never healthy enough to pitch? His signing seems more like it pointed the way... not played a part in the change in plans. I mean this as a neutral statement, cause it was a tough position, but when you trade your #2 starter and don’t really make an effort to replace him with anything comparable, you’ve chosen to step backwards (sure, Price sat, but no one knew that at the time). It isn’t Covid or bad luck. It’s like the Rays this year: flipping Snell — they can’t honestly claim to be pursuing a repeat as a top priority.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 24, 2021 11:23:34 GMT -5
You forgot Mchugh. That's three potential starters. The virus likely had something to do with Sale's decision also (the proper one in my view). I agree the team decided to drag the bottom of the bin but they weren't given much choice when it all came down. They definitely took advantage of the fallout to forgoe spending. But think about what the alternative would have looked like. Every potential addition would have been holding all the negotiating cards. That's not the best market to compete in. McHugh was part of the bottom dragging... a 1/$600k deal for a guy who was never healthy enough to pitch? His signing seems more like it pointed the way... not played a part in the change in plans. I mean this as a neutral statement, cause it was a tough position, but when you trade your #2 starter and don’t really make an effort to replace him with anything comparable, you’ve chosen to step backwards (sure, Price sat, but no one knew that at the time). It isn’t Covid or bad luck. It’s like the Rays this year: flipping Snell — they can’t honestly claim to be pursuing a repeat as a top priority. Okay. If you ignore that they lost their best non-Sale starter due to covid. And also a depth piece in McHugh due to covid. And also, don't forget, that Darwinzon Hernandez missed most of the season due to covid... Then we can focus on the fact that the team's pitching staff at the end of the season was vastly different, and much better, than what they had for the first part of the season. And then we could talk about how they lost Sale due to injury and will have him back, hopefully, for half of 2022, including any potential playoff run. And then we could talk about the Richards signing, and the emerging depth with Pivetta, Seabold, Mata, et al.
No one said they didn't take a step back last season without Price (though he would have given them 0 innings anyway). But you took a "100-loss pace" as their baseline, when at worst we should think of their baseline as a .500ish team. (They played .500, 18-18, over the last 60% of last season.) And they're improving on that baseline.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2021 11:44:38 GMT -5
McHugh was part of the bottom dragging... a 1/$600k deal for a guy who was never healthy enough to pitch? His signing seems more like it pointed the way... not played a part in the change in plans. I mean this as a neutral statement, cause it was a tough position, but when you trade your #2 starter and don’t really make an effort to replace him with anything comparable, you’ve chosen to step backwards (sure, Price sat, but no one knew that at the time). It isn’t Covid or bad luck. It’s like the Rays this year: flipping Snell — they can’t honestly claim to be pursuing a repeat as a top priority. Okay. If you ignore that they lost their best non-Sale starter due to covid. And also a depth piece in McHugh due to covid. And also, don't forget, that Darwinzon Hernandez missed most of the season due to covid... Then we can focus on the fact that the team's pitching staff at the end of the season was vastly different, and much better, than what they had for the first part of the season. And then we could talk about how they lost Sale due to injury and will have him back, hopefully, for half of 2022, including any potential playoff run. And then we could talk about the Richards signing, and the emerging depth with Pivetta, Seabold, Mata, et al.
No one said they didn't take a step back last season without Price (though he would have given them 0 innings anyway). But you took a "100-loss pace" as their baseline, when at worst we should think of their baseline as a .500ish team. (They played .500, 18-18, over the last 60% of last season.) And they're improving on that baseline.
How was McHugh lost to Covid? His elbow hadn’t recovered. And either way, it is saying a guy who was a pretty good pitcher who may or may not ever pitch effectively — or pitch at all — again was a huge loss. We’ll see when someone eventually signs him... there doesn’t seem to be a mad rush. Indeed, one might point to McHugh as a good example of avoiding counting too much on reclamation projects. Hernandez was never a starter. Yes, he and Josh Taylor were out. Ok. I am fine with writing off last season, but it is absurd to say it wasn’t a 100-loss season because one stretch was different from the others. Did the first half not count? There were signs of life, yes. We’ll see if Houck can continue to put up numbers way beyond his career stats this season, etc. Obviously their pitching has a far higher ceiling this year. That is good. Alas, last season’s staff was world-historically bad, so.... Add: www.masslive.com/redsox/2020/07/collin-mchugh-boston-red-sox-pitcher-opts-out-of-2020-season-due-to-elbow-injury.htmlMcHugh was projected to miss *at least* half the season before Covid. Let’s not act like somehow Covid robbed us of a reliable starter.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 24, 2021 13:40:06 GMT -5
Okay. If you ignore that they lost their best non-Sale starter due to covid. And also a depth piece in McHugh due to covid. And also, don't forget, that Darwinzon Hernandez missed most of the season due to covid... Then we can focus on the fact that the team's pitching staff at the end of the season was vastly different, and much better, than what they had for the first part of the season. And then we could talk about how they lost Sale due to injury and will have him back, hopefully, for half of 2022, including any potential playoff run. And then we could talk about the Richards signing, and the emerging depth with Pivetta, Seabold, Mata, et al. No one said they didn't take a step back last season without Price (though he would have given them 0 innings anyway). But you took a "100-loss pace" as their baseline, when at worst we should think of their baseline as a .500ish team. (They played .500, 18-18, over the last 60% of last season.) And they're improving on that baseline.
How was McHugh lost to Covid? His elbow hadn’t recovered. And either way, it is saying a guy who was a pretty good pitcher who may or may not ever pitch effectively — or pitch at all — again was a huge loss. We’ll see when someone eventually signs him... there doesn’t seem to be a mad rush. Indeed, one might point to McHugh as a good example of avoiding counting too much on reclamation projects. Hernandez was never a starter. Yes, he and Josh Taylor were out. Ok. I am fine with writing off last season, but it is absurd to say it wasn’t a 100-loss season because one stretch was different from the others. Did the first half not count? There were signs of life, yes. We’ll see if Houck can continue to put up numbers way beyond his career stats this season, etc. Obviously their pitching has a far higher ceiling this year. That is good. Alas, last season’s staff was world-historically bad, so.... Add: www.masslive.com/redsox/2020/07/collin-mchugh-boston-red-sox-pitcher-opts-out-of-2020-season-due-to-elbow-injury.htmlMcHugh was projected to miss *at least* half the season before Covid. Let’s not act like somehow Covid robbed us of a reliable starter. Would you prefer to create a baseline by looking at last year's team record according to starting pitcher? In games started by Nathan Eovaldi, Martin Perez, Nick Pivetta, and Tanner Houck, the Red Sox were 14-12 (.538 win percentage equating to 87 wins in a 162 game season)In games started by Zack Godley, Chris Mazza, Ryan Weber, Colten Brewer, Kyle Hart, Andrew Triggs, Mike Kickham, Josh Osich, Robinson Leyer, Austin Brice, Matt Hall, and Ryan Brasier (oh my god, read through that list again), the Red Sox were 10-24 (.294 win percentage equating to 48 wins in a 162 game season)With E-Rod, Richards, and eventually Sale in the mix, the hope is that none of the guys in the second list make a start for the Red Sox in 2021. I don't see why 87-88 wins isn't a reasonable projection for this team as currently constructed.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2021 13:45:56 GMT -5
...and they may not be done.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 24, 2021 13:46:52 GMT -5
Over So you going to compare every team to the 2018 team?
How many guys in the Sox rotation will be over 20 starts this season??? Erod-Under Sale-Under Eovaldi-Under Richards-Under Perez-Hopefully Under Houck-?? Pivetta-? They need more arms out there. I don't understand this at all. Why wouldn't some of these guys make 20 starts? You're being pretty unnecessarily pessimistic. What's the reason for Eovaldi being under? Perez? Both were on pace to last year. And yeah, Sale's coming back midseason - that's why they went out and filled the rotation. Furthermore, isn't it obvious that the team is being built understanding that some of these guys won't? there are the 7 guys you list plus Andriese and Whitlock, not to mention some of the other AAA depth that's close to ready. The Red Sox are going to have to manage their pitchers' workloads. Guess what? So is every team in the league coming off of a short season. Some guys might be stronger for having a lesser workload last year. And by the way, the Richards signing doesn't necessarily preclude the signing of a Rich Hill type if the money makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Jan 24, 2021 13:59:46 GMT -5
How many guys in the Sox rotation will be over 20 starts this season??? Erod-Under Sale-Under Eovaldi-Under Richards-Under Perez-Hopefully Under Houck-?? Pivetta-? They need more arms out there. I don't understand this at all. Why wouldn't some of these guys make 20 starts? You're being pretty unnecessarily pessimistic. What's the reason for Eovaldi being under? Perez? Both were on pace to last year. And yeah, Sale's coming back midseason - that's why they went out and filled the rotation. Furthermore, isn't it obvious that the team is being built understanding that some of these guys won't? there are the 7 guys you list plus Andriese and Whitlock, not to mention some of the other AAA depth that's close to ready. The Red Sox are going to have to manage their pitchers' workloads. Guess what? So is every team in the league coming off of a short season. Some guys might be stronger for having a lesser workload last year. And by the way, the Richards signing doesn't necessarily preclude the signing of a Rich Hill type if the money makes sense. I don’t view it as being unnecessarily pessimistic. I’d prefer to say that I’m being realistic. We know Sale and Erod will be under since they missed all of 2020. Richards making 20 starts is probably a reach given his history, as well. Perez I think is durable enough, I just said “hopefully under” as he’s not very good and I hope they have better alternatives(maybe Houck is one of them). That leaves Eovaldi(who isn’t exactly the picture of durability). I’m not rooting against any of these guys. I just think they need more reinforcements to get through 162 games. I also hope they have better options than Rich Hill still available.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2021 13:59:57 GMT -5
How many guys in the Sox rotation will be over 20 starts this season??? Erod-Under Sale-Under Eovaldi-Under Richards-Under Perez-Hopefully Under Houck-?? Pivetta-? They need more arms out there. I don't understand this at all. Why wouldn't some of these guys make 20 starts? You're being pretty unnecessarily pessimistic. What's the reason for Eovaldi being under? Perez? Both were on pace to last year. And yeah, Sale's coming back midseason - that's why they went out and filled the rotation. Furthermore, isn't it obvious that the team is being built understanding that some of these guys won't? there are the 7 guys you list plus Andriese and Whitlock, not to mention some of the other AAA depth that's close to ready. The Red Sox are going to have to manage their pitchers' workloads. Guess what? So is every team in the league coming off of a short season. Some guys might be stronger for having a lesser workload last year. And by the way, the Richards signing doesn't necessarily preclude the signing of a Rich Hill type if the money makes sense. Interesting: but do you think they are prioritizing staying under the tax threshold? I don’t see how they can get Hill (or a comp) AND fill what seem like more pressing holes AND stay under. I’m not sure why they would, either. I’m not psyched about the pitching, but I also see the upside you and others point to — the length of the staff actually makes a Hill signing seem unnecessary to me (unless it is part of a tax-line breaking strategy). I DO count on ~30 starts from Perez. I also count on no less than 80 starts from Perez, Eovaldi, and ERod. So then you ask, where are the other half... I think they can get 30 from Sale and Richards. That means 50 from Houck, Pivetta, Seabold et al., which is not at all unreasonable... I cannot imagine a scenario in which Houck doesn’t make bare minimum 10 starts except injury after last year’s performance. That doesn’t actually strike me as requiring getting another guy (especially one who is a 100% certainty to hit the DL at least once, even for a blister).
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2021 14:12:22 GMT -5
How was McHugh lost to Covid? His elbow hadn’t recovered. And either way, it is saying a guy who was a pretty good pitcher who may or may not ever pitch effectively — or pitch at all — again was a huge loss. We’ll see when someone eventually signs him... there doesn’t seem to be a mad rush. Indeed, one might point to McHugh as a good example of avoiding counting too much on reclamation projects. Hernandez was never a starter. Yes, he and Josh Taylor were out. Ok. I am fine with writing off last season, but it is absurd to say it wasn’t a 100-loss season because one stretch was different from the others. Did the first half not count? There were signs of life, yes. We’ll see if Houck can continue to put up numbers way beyond his career stats this season, etc. Obviously their pitching has a far higher ceiling this year. That is good. Alas, last season’s staff was world-historically bad, so.... Add: www.masslive.com/redsox/2020/07/collin-mchugh-boston-red-sox-pitcher-opts-out-of-2020-season-due-to-elbow-injury.htmlMcHugh was projected to miss *at least* half the season before Covid. Let’s not act like somehow Covid robbed us of a reliable starter. Would you prefer to create a baseline by looking at last year's team record according to starting pitcher? In games started by Nathan Eovaldi, Martin Perez, Nick Pivetta, and Tanner Houck, the Red Sox were 14-12 (.538 win percentage equating to 87 wins in a 162 game season)In games started by Zack Godley, Chris Mazza, Ryan Weber, Colten Brewer, Kyle Hart, Andrew Triggs, Mike Kickham, Josh Osich, Robinson Leyer, Austin Brice, Matt Hall, and Ryan Brasier (oh my god, read through that list again), the Red Sox were 10-24 (.294 win percentage equating to 48 wins in a 162 game season)With E-Rod, Richards, and eventually Sale in the mix, the hope is that none of the guys in the second list make a start for the Red Sox in 2021. I don't see why 87-88 wins isn't a reasonable projection for this team as currently constructed. Other than the fact that Pivetta pitched twice, I’d actually call this fair. I’m not saying they are now the team that lost the equivalent of 100 games last year. But that *did* happen... go back and reread game threads to relive the agony. And my point was they did that to us on purpose: they said here is a steamer of a season so we can restart the tax clock, but the implication was we’ll give you a much better product down the line. I also think if injuries aren’t an issue, they can win 88 games. I am not as confident as others that injuries won’t be an issue given some of the histories of players we are really relying on, but let’s say they hit 88 wins. I don’t see them making a huge post season run. So this does not make me feel better about the cuts and indignities that have been made. Will this 88 win season be a stepping stone to the next 95 win season? That remains to be seen. Many of the moves are stop gaps, so we still don’t know what the core of that next great team will look like besides Xander and a couple other guys. In that sense, perhaps nothing is more important than how Dalbec, Pivetta, Houck, and Seabold perform. If they do well, especially the two acquisitions, we can really see a positive from last year. If they crash and burn, then the only significant gain from last year and this moving forward is cash and a draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2021 14:18:14 GMT -5
This whole loss of memory thing reeks of Internet time to me. Go back and look at the timeline for the pandemic, when it surfaced, when it erupted, when Betts and Price were traded, and when MLB actually started their season. All of that informs the argument that seems to imply the Sox FO failing to do their job. They did what good organizations do when confronted with a whole new reality. They reworked their plans and set a different course. There were few other options to my thinking.
Going forward, we do not have a clear understanding of what the plans are for the upcoming season. If it doesn't begin till late May or early June, then 20 starts will be marginal for many in the rotation. Beyond that, the guesstimating of who does what is useless without context. They have any number of possible starters and they'll feel free to mix and match as needed. That's the idea with the number of guys they've brought on board and that they now have available.
For all we know, Sale comes back in June and leads the team in starts.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2021 14:26:26 GMT -5
This whole loss of memory thing reeks of Internet time to me. Go back and look at the timeline for the pandemic, when it surfaced, when it erupted, when Betts and Price were traded, and when MLB actually started their season. All of that informs the argument that seems to imply the Sox FO failing to do their job. They did what good organizations do when confronted with a whole new reality. They reworked their plans and set a different course. There were few other options to my thinking. Going forward, we do not have a clear understanding of what the plans are for the upcoming season. If it doesn't begin till late May or early June, then 20 starts will be marginal for many in the rotation. Beyond that, the guesstimating of who does what is useless without context. They have any number of possible starters and they'll feel free to mix and match as needed. That's the idea with the number of guys they've brought on board and that they now have available. For all we know, Sale comes back in June and leads the team in starts. Maybe. But that isn’t the way it sounds. www.masslive.com/redsox/2021/01/chris-sale-injury-boston-red-sox-apt-to-take-a-conservative-approach-bringing-lefty-back-from-tommy-john-surgery-report.html
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2021 15:15:26 GMT -5
I don't understand this at all. Why wouldn't some of these guys make 20 starts? You're being pretty unnecessarily pessimistic. What's the reason for Eovaldi being under? Perez? Both were on pace to last year. And yeah, Sale's coming back midseason - that's why they went out and filled the rotation. Furthermore, isn't it obvious that the team is being built understanding that some of these guys won't? there are the 7 guys you list plus Andriese and Whitlock, not to mention some of the other AAA depth that's close to ready. The Red Sox are going to have to manage their pitchers' workloads. Guess what? So is every team in the league coming off of a short season. Some guys might be stronger for having a lesser workload last year. And by the way, the Richards signing doesn't necessarily preclude the signing of a Rich Hill type if the money makes sense. I don’t view it as being unnecessarily pessimistic. I’d prefer to say that I’m being realistic. We know Sale and Erod will be under since they missed all of 2020. Richards making 20 starts is probably a reach given his history, as well. Perez I think is durable enough, I just said “hopefully under” as he’s not very good and I hope they have better alternatives(maybe Houck is one of them). That leaves Eovaldi(who isn’t exactly the picture of durability). I’m not rooting against any of these guys. I just think they need more reinforcements to get through 162 games. I also hope they have better options than Rich Hill still available. Why can't ERod make 20 starts? He's going to be fresh, he didn't have an arm injury. You might limit his innings, I see no reason why you limit his starts. I think that's true for most guys, they will all be more fresh than normal and only Sale is coming off an arm injury. I'm sure these guys have a throwing program that they have been doing.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 24, 2021 16:34:50 GMT -5
I don’t view it as being unnecessarily pessimistic. I’d prefer to say that I’m being realistic. We know Sale and Erod will be under since they missed all of 2020. Richards making 20 starts is probably a reach given his history, as well. Perez I think is durable enough, I just said “hopefully under” as he’s not very good and I hope they have better alternatives(maybe Houck is one of them). That leaves Eovaldi(who isn’t exactly the picture of durability). I’m not rooting against any of these guys. I just think they need more reinforcements to get through 162 games. I also hope they have better options than Rich Hill still available. Why can't ERod make 20 starts? He's going to be fresh, he didn't have an arm injury. You might limit his innings, I see no reason why you limit his starts. I think that's true for most guys, they will all be more fresh than normal and only Sale is coming off an arm injury. I'm sure these guys have a throwing program that they have been doing. Has anyone seen anything on pitchers this coming season in general regarding limits? I am curious what FOs will view as best practices for starters coming off of last year. I mean, I can certainly imagine it is nothing... full throttle. But I do wonder if there is any concern that having such a truncated season means taking extra precautions about use. Of course, it might be a blessing for some guys who had been overused (I don’t mean Sox pitchers, just generally). It is one of the things I’m most curious about going into the season. And of course it also likely depends on how normal a spring and season they have.
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jan 25, 2021 17:40:27 GMT -5
Remember when the inverted W was an absolute horror? I’m not sure if that’s still a thing. But if it is, Richards and Sale would make up one hell of a platoon. You could overlay their deliveries and basically have the shadow of a condor.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 25, 2021 18:14:37 GMT -5
That's been debunked.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jan 26, 2021 2:37:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 28, 2021 20:22:30 GMT -5
Seems like he just re-invented himself
|
|
|
Post by ep51 on Jun 28, 2021 20:41:39 GMT -5
I think Richards needs to ice his elbow before his next start until baseball bans it.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 28, 2021 21:36:35 GMT -5
Seems like he just re-invented himself Is it right that lower RPMs are good for sinkers because that creates more sinking action?
(Side note: some fun hindsight opportunities in reading through the last page of this thread...)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 28, 2021 23:50:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jun 29, 2021 0:11:26 GMT -5
Richards said that sinker was actually a changeup.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Jun 29, 2021 7:57:39 GMT -5
Anyone paying attention knew that Richards was identified as a guy with a high spin rate. There was very little talk about it but I assume many people were fully aware of where that spin rate was coming from. In fact MLB and I assume all players, coaches, scouts, managers and front office people were fully aware. Here's a question. Are there any pitchers with a high spin rate whose pitches have not shown a significant decline since the deadline? For a Sox example; Darwinzon Hernandez has always had his spin rate touted as a major plus. Have his pitches shown a significant decline?
|
|
|