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.
|
Post by soxinjersey on Apr 29, 2021 13:39:36 GMT -5
Whitlock has become the second pitcher in MLB history to jump from AA to MLB at the start of a season and begin his career with games totaling 13+ scoreless innings (and no inherited runners allowed).
(Joe Smith, who started his career with 15.1 scoreless innings over 17 outings for the 2007 Mets, came in with 2 outs and the bases full in his 3rd game and allowed a run to score, and that's really on him. So this is removing a bogus candidate rather than cherry-picking to make the feat more impressive.)
Aaron Crow's first 13 games for the 2011 Royals had a 15.1 8 0 0 5 15 line.
Two other guys had such a streak at the start of the season after pitching in AAA or the equivalent the year before -- Bunny Hearn (17.1 IP) for the Braves in 1926, and Kevin Cameron for the Padres in 2007 (16.1). Cameron had 15 SO and 15 BB.
Whitlock is the 40th guy to start his career with scoreless outings totaling 13+ innings (ignoring inherited runners), but 14 of those guys did it over 2 seasons (or more). He's got the 7th highest IP/G (5th over a single season), highest K/9 (probably 3rd or 4th if you adjust for league rates) and 10th best walk rate (7th for a single season).
Of course nobody has done this after missing the previous year and a half with an injury.
The unique combo of TJ surgery and the Rule 5 draft means that very few pitchers have debuted in MLB with his lack of both AAA and recent experience. And it's already one of the most impressive scoreless starts to a career, period. The only one that looks better is Ramon Ramirez for the Rockies in 2006, who after opening the season with 1 game in AAA, had a 15.1 6 0 0 2 20 line over his first 11 games.
(Ramirez's streak ended against the Dodgers on May 15 on a tie-breaking 7th inning single by Nomar, after Ramirez had walked the pitcher to lead off the inning and given up a GB single. They then brought in LOOGY Ray King to face J.D. Drew with 1 out, and he doubled and pinned two inherited runners on him. Takashi Saito got the save for LA, and that's all the past or future Red Sox that appear in the box score.)
|
|
|
Post by soxinjersey on Apr 29, 2021 13:55:54 GMT -5
One of my favorite baseball cards all-time: 1955 Topps of a Dodgers rookie lefthander. Here's the first line: 2 18 2-0 1.000 7(hits) 0 (runs) 0 (ER) 27 (K) 6 (BB) 0.00 (ERA)
I danced all the way home.
The second line (minor league record) is just as interesting:
126 731 47-45 .511 541 (Hits) 391 (runs) 296 (ER) 817 (K) 610 (BB!) 3.64 (ERA)
So this is not the bonus-baby, Sandy Koufax! This kid was a wild lefty who developed slowly but went 21-9 in Fort Worth in 1954 before making his debut in the show.
The next spring, he injured his arm in ST but still pitched reasonably well in the regular season. Then, however, he plummeted, as I remember, all the way back to Class D before hanging up his spikes in 1958 or so.
Karl Spooner is the name. You can look it up. Meanwhile, much as I like Whitlock, he's not quite there yet!
|
|
|
Post by soxinsf on Apr 29, 2021 13:59:52 GMT -5
Yeah I don't agree but that's not crazy. That said, we'll have half a season of data by then too. I'd rank any of the top 4 ahead of Whitlock for now at least. This sort of rank speculation makes for fun and good reading, but it makes no sense to get too invested in it given the SSS for Whitlock and virtually nothing of professional experience for the top guys in the draft. Whitlock surely belongs in the top 10, but we will know a hell of a lot more by mid-June than we do today. If he is unscored upon then, hallelujah, but listen to Remy and Eck who both pointed out that no one he is pitching against has ever seen him. We have no idea what happens to him when teams get familiar with him or he has to go through a batting order for the third time in a game. I love what we have seen so far. But it is too soon to anoint him the second coming of Jim Lonborg, or even Frank Sullivan.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 29, 2021 15:14:45 GMT -5
Yeah it's a slider and he's only thrown a handful of them. Expect Houck vs. Whitlock to be a major discussion on a future podcast.
Here's another really good discussion question: Will the more important result of 2020 being an awful year be the number 4 pick in the Rule 4 draft or the Rule 5 draft? The entry draft pick will almost certainly be ranked higher in July, but based on what we know about draft pick bust rates versus what we know Whitlock at least is right now... you could make the case it's Whitlock. I don't think I would personally, but that we can even discuss that with a straight face is bonkers. It's a great topic, and I would assert that there's no possible good answer. Whitlock right now has a huge edge in command, certainly within-game, and probably in consistency across games (although the SS is small). Stuff-wise, Whitlock's changeup and Houck's slider may well both be plus-plus pitches. Houck's sinker, in terms of movement and velo, is also outrageous while Whitlock's is merely very good, but so far that edge is negated by the command difference. Houck's 4-seamer is a legit third pitch, but in a vacuum not a very good one, but it sets up his sinker. And his off-speed pitch is a work in progress, while Whitlock's slider seems to be further along. (He's thrown 8, and it's actually been his most effective pitch.)
Another joker in the deck: the cutter is an easy pitch to learn, and I don't believe either guy has tried it. The curve is rather tougher to learn; I'm unsure about both guy's history with it. And was Whitlock's overnight mastery of Andriese's changeup grip a fluke, or does it indicate a skill for learning new pitches? What about Houck's command projection in light of the fact that taller pitchers often struggle when young and improve? Houck attempted to learn a knuckle curve in Salem as part of the Great Repertoire Overhaul they attempted with him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 29, 2021 15:31:32 GMT -5
Well, it turns out that the consecutive scoreless-inning streak at the start of a career is the most bogus record imaginable.
The biggest problem with ER is its gross failure to adjust for inherited runners. If you leave with 2 outs and a runner on 1st and the new pitcher walks three straight guys ... you get charged with an earned the run? Seriously?
It turns out that there's a simple and reasonably fair way to fix this.
If you enter the game with 0 outs, you inherit responsibility for any runner on 1st. If you enter with 1 out, you inherit responsibility for runners on 1st and 2nd. If you enter with 2 outs, you inherit everyone.
This is very close to measuring the actual Run Expectancy of all the possible base-out situations.
Brad Ziegler, as you may dimly recall, started his career with a mind-boggling 38 "scoreless" innings. The old record was 21.1.
But the first MLB hitter Ziegler ever faced was with 2 outs and a runner on 3rd, and he gave up a single! That's 90% his fault. The actual streak, if you use this fER ("f" for "fair"), is nothing.
There are a host of others:
Victor Cruz 21.1 > 1.2 Caleb Thielbar 19.2 > 5.0 Vince Horesman 18.2 > 2.2 Carson Smith 18.1 > 13.1 Mark Lowe 17.2 > 10.1 Bunny Hearn 17.1 > 9.2 Bob McClure 16.0 > 3.1 Steve Cishek 15.2 > 2.0
Joe Smith 15.1 > 1.1.
Also ... if you get sent down to the minors and give up runs there, and the come back to MLB and continue a scoreless streak, should that really count? No, of course not. Sorry, Austin Maddox (and 6 others).
Well, it turns out that we know of only 5 players who have started their career with 15 fair scoreless innings, as opposed to the 22 guys officially credited. There may be guys who had runs charged to them that were their relievers' faults ... identifying them would require producing the fER allowed for every pitcher of every game ever! I'm not doing that soon.
16.1 IP, Pat Perry, 1985-86 Cardinals. 9 G, 9/12 to 4/19. Line was 1.1 3 0 0 5 7.
16.1 IP, Kevin Cameron, 2007 Padres, 11 G, 4/5 to 5/11. 16.1 6 0 0 15 15.
15.1 IP, Ramon Ramirez, 2006 Rockies, 11 G, 4/14 to 5/13. 15.1 6 0 0 2 20.
15.1 IP, Jeremy Fikac, 2001 Padres, 12 G, 8/16 to 9/8. 15.1 4 0 0 2 13. The only one who allowed an inherited runner -- but he came in with bases full and nobody out and got a GDP and a 3rd out.
15.1 IP, Aaron Cook, 2011 Royals, 13 G, 3/31 to 5/3. 15,1 8 0 0 5 15.
Of course, the simplest way to hype this is to say that the record for scoreless innings at the start of a career with no inherited runners allowed (and not going back to the minors) is 16.1 IP.
Whitlock is of course sitting at 13.1.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Apr 29, 2021 16:02:55 GMT -5
Well, it turns out that the consecutive scoreless-inning streak at the start of a career is the most bogus record imaginable.
The biggest problem with ER is its gross failure to adjust for inherited runners. If you leave with 2 outs and a runner on 1st and the new pitcher walks three straight guys ... you get charged with an earned the run? Seriously?
It turns out that there's a simple and reasonably fair way to fix this.
If you enter the game with 0 outs, you inherit responsibility for any runner on 1st. If you enter with 1 out, you inherit responsibility for runners on 1st and 2nd. If you enter with 2 outs, you inherit everyone.
This is very close to measuring the actual Run Expectancy of all the possible base-out situations.
Brad Ziegler, as you may dimly recall, started his career with a mind-boggling 38 "scoreless" innings. The old record was 21.1.
But the first MLB hitter Ziegler ever faced was with 2 outs and a runner on 3rd, and he gave up a single! That's 90% his fault. The actual streak, if you use this fER ("f" for "fair"), is nothing.
There are a host of others:
Victor Cruz 21.1 > 1.2 Caleb Thielbar 19.2 > 5.0 Vince Horesman 18.2 > 2.2 Carson Smith 18.1 > 13.1 Mark Lowe 17.2 > 10.1 Bunny Hearn 17.1 > 9.2 Bob McClure 16.0 > 3.1 Steve Cishek 15.2 > 2.0
Joe Smith 15.1 > 1.1.
Also ... if you get sent down to the minors and give up runs there, and the come back to MLB and continue a scoreless streak, should that really count? No, of course not. Sorry, Austin Maddox (and 6 others).
Well, it turns out that we know of only 5 players who have started their career with 15 fair scoreless innings, as opposed to the 22 guys officially credited. There may be guys who had runs charged to them that were their relievers' faults ... identifying them would require producing the fER allowed for every pitcher of every game ever! I'm not doing that soon.
16.1 IP, Pat Perry, 1985-86 Cardinals. 9 G, 9/12 to 4/19. Line was 1.1 3 0 0 5 7.
16.1 IP, Kevin Cameron, 2007 Padres, 11 G, 4/5 to 5/11. 16.1 6 0 0 15 15.
15.1 IP, Ramon Ramirez, 2006 Rockies, 11 G, 4/14 to 5/13. 15.1 6 0 0 2 20.
15.1 IP, Jeremy Fikac, 2001 Padres, 12 G, 8/16 to 9/8. 15.1 4 0 0 2 13. The only one who allowed an inherited runner -- but he came in with bases full and nobody out and got a GDP and a 3rd out.
15.1 IP, Aaron Cook, 2011 Royals, 13 G, 3/31 to 5/3. 15,1 8 0 0 5 15.
Of course, the simplest way to hype this is to say that the record for scoreless innings at the start of a career with no inherited runners allowed (and not going back to the minors) is 16.1 IP.
Whitlock is of course sitting at 13.1.
Immortals all! Kidding. This is actually interesting and seems sensible. I’ve always thought the lack of clear penalty for relievers who blow inherited runners while maintaining their own low ERAs was ridiculous and led to some of the worst deception in reliever stats.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Apr 29, 2021 18:12:51 GMT -5
I don’t think a reliever who comes in and gives up a single with a man on third and then finishes the inning has performed that much worse than a guy who starts a new inning and gives up a single then finishes the inning.
I think baserunners who score should be shared between the man who put them on and the man who lets them in. The pitcher who puts a man on first, second or third who scores should be charged with .25, .5, or .75 runs. The reliever should be charged .75, .5, or .25.
|
|
|
Post by soxinjersey on Apr 29, 2021 20:55:25 GMT -5
Eric, I'll repeat what I just wrote and which apparently went unread. You define this record as the "scoreless innings at the start of a career with no inherited runners allowed [to score]" and give 16.1 as the record. OK, perhaps, but only for relievers. As a starting pitcher, Karl Spooner in 1954 pitched two complete-game shutouts in his MLB debut and set all kinds of records at the time in the process. His stat-line is truly phenomenal! Despite blowing out his arm in ST in 1955, he did pitch reasonably well that year, so I suspect that he added a bit to that record. The filters you put in (e.g. RP or games pitched) apparently weeded out this achievement. You can look it up in Baseball Reference.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 29, 2021 22:40:55 GMT -5
Eric, I'll repeat what I just wrote and which apparently went unread. You define this record as the "scoreless innings at the start of a career with no inherited runners allowed [to score]" and give 16.1 as the record. OK, perhaps, but only for relievers. As a starting pitcher, Karl Spooner in 1954 pitched two complete-game shutouts in his MLB debut and set all kinds of records at the time in the process. His stat-line is truly phenomenal! Despite blowing out his arm in ST in 1955, he did pitch reasonably well that year, so I suspect that he added a bit to that record. The filters you put in (e.g. RP or games pitched) apparently weeded out this achievement. You can look it up in Baseball Reference. I did read the post about Spooner but not too carefully! I thought it was about his first two starts, not his first two games. His SABR bio is really interesting.
I put no filters on my search, but I just figured out what happened. There's actually no way to search for consecutive innings at b-Ref, just streaks of consecutive games, and the search is limited to 400 outcomes. I resorted the search by innings, but Spooner's streak of innings was in just 2 games. I may do some more searches and see who else has opened their career with two shutouts and the like.
So what we're really talking about here for Whitlock is the number of total innings in a streak of multiple games. Which is a different animal. You've got to be on your game on many different occasions rather than just twice.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 29, 2021 23:41:44 GMT -5
I don’t think a reliever who comes in and gives up a single with a man on third and then finishes the inning has performed that much worse than a guy who starts a new inning and gives up a single then finishes the inning. I think baserunners who score should be shared between the man who put them on and the man who lets them in. The pitcher who puts a man on first, second or third who scores should be charged with .25, .5, or .75 runs. The reliever should be charged .75, .5, or .25. Your first sentence is basically saying that sequencing doesn't count. Is Out, 2B, Out, 2B, Out, then the side in order "not that much worse" than Out, 2B, Out, Out; then 2B, then the side in order? In terms of prediction, they're equivalent. But in terms of winning baseball games, they're very different.
The way to do this analytically is by Run Expectancy. A runner on 3B with 2 outs is worth about .27 runs. So Ziegler in his debut was responsible for .73 runs, which is not zero.
Why b-Ref does not include this in WAR is beyond baffling. The Run Expectancy table first appeared on page 153 of The Hidden Game of Baseball in 1984 (my book falls open to that page!) and I immediately started using it for dividing up inherited runners. The idea appeared in STAT's Baseball Scoreboard in the early 90's, and BP used to track it.
RE does vary with level of offense, so the blame for letting in that inherited runner with 2 outs is very different in 1968 versus 1930. But we need a counting stat that can be used in all eras, with a whole number, so that's what my "Fair ER" is. The version with RE is True ER, which I used to calculate for all the Sox minor league pitchers each year.
This isn't the only thing wrong with ER, BTW. The un-realized third out of the inning should merely clear the bases rather than make all subsequent damage in the inning unearned. Out, single, out, error, 3 run homer, then four more hits ending ending with another homer, and finally, the last out ... that should be two unearned runs, not all seven. In order to figure out whether a run is earned or unearned, we "reconstruct" the inning assuming that the hitters would have done the same thing, even though all the base-out situations would have been different. So there's no argument against reconstructing into the following inning with the same assumption.
True ER also handles errors using RE -- you get credit for the change in RE created by the error, including negative tER if you pitch out of a jam after an error. Pedro was great at that, while Gibson in '68 was relatively terrible (league-average), and none of that is reflected in conventional ER. It also counts LDP's as reverse errors, essentially--just trying to remove as much luck as possible. (Runners caught advancing are ignored, because you'd have to also adjust for guys taking an unusual extra base.)
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Apr 30, 2021 5:54:10 GMT -5
I don’t think a reliever who comes in and gives up a single with a man on third and then finishes the inning has performed that much worse than a guy who starts a new inning and gives up a single then finishes the inning. I think baserunners who score should be shared between the man who put them on and the man who lets them in. The pitcher who puts a man on first, second or third who scores should be charged with .25, .5, or .75 runs. The reliever should be charged .75, .5, or .25. Your first sentence is basically saying that sequencing doesn't count. Is Out, 2B, Out, 2B, Out, then the side in order "not that much worse" than Out, 2B, Out, Out; then 2B, then the side in order? In terms of prediction, they're equivalent. But in terms of winning baseball games, they're very different.
[...]
No, I'm obviously NOT saying that, so all the rest of your blather is a waste of time.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 30, 2021 12:31:20 GMT -5
Your first sentence is basically saying that sequencing doesn't count. Is Out, 2B, Out, 2B, Out, then the side in order "not that much worse" than Out, 2B, Out, Out; then 2B, then the side in order? In terms of prediction, they're equivalent. But in terms of winning baseball games, they're very different.
[...]
No, I'm obviously NOT saying that, so all the rest of your blather is a waste of time. You've isolated a broad statement that I narrowed down two sentences later. You were making a point about quality of performance ... that was entirely off topic because this discussion is about run prevention as a measure of contribution towards winning. I'm excited because Whitlock is a few innings away from a purely statistical feat that's impressive. It's pure numbers.
I mean, holy crap, I had pointed out that one of the all-time leaders in this ranking fanned 15 and walked 15 in his supposed scoreless streak! How could you possibly think we were talking about quality of performance? Why would you even bring that up? Ziegler started his historic "scoreless" streak by giving up an RBI single to the first batter he ever faced! Why would you think we were talking about how well he pitched at the start of his career? How is a statement about the near-equality of giving up that single to the first batter of the next inning remotely on topic?
You seem to have a difficulty grasping context. I've pointed this out again and again. I think that's a hard-wired trait and I don' blame you for it (I can't, because my ex-wife / housemate / best friend has the same problem!). But, man, you are responsible for a modicum of self-awareness. Before you lose it over some assertion you think is wrong, ask yourself if there's some context that you're missing because you sometimes do that.
Here's the best part.
The RBI single that Ziegler gave up was a grounder up the middle to Ian Kinsler. Likelier than not, a somewhat cheap hit. He then got a strike on Michael Young and picked Kinsler off first. That was in the bottom of the 8th, trailing 8-4. There was no next inning in this game. He never retired a batter in his debut.
|
|
|
Post by soxinjersey on Apr 30, 2021 23:14:14 GMT -5
I resisted responding to this post at first because I was not involved in this particular aspect of this discussion, but I do have two further points to make about Spooner. First, I wrote this particular post and tried to make sure that Eric would see it because everything I have read by him (a lot) suggested to me that he would enjoy and appreciate this information. If Spooner's is not the greatest MLB pitching debut ever (over a couple of games), it's close. My second reason is that one of the joys in baseball resides in the short careers of guys like this: players who dream of a cup-of-coffee in the Show; flashes-in-the-pan (Dusty Rhodes in 1954, Bill Rohr for the Sox in 1967, I think) who explode on the scene and then disappear quickly; one-year stars (The Bird, Joe Charbonneau -- every franchise has one) who then fade away because of injury or an insurmountable weakness; and then the potential greats who die too soon (Harry Agganis, Ernie Davis, Jose Fernandez). I enjoy remembering them: nostalgia, poignancy, and tragedy are part of the game. Movies: Rudy and Field of Dreams (Shoeless Joe and Moonlight Graham); and literature: George Plimpton's Sidd Finch, and the Herb Score-like death of pitching phenom Damon Rutherford, riding a long string of scoreless and hitless innings, in Robert Coover's Universal Baseball Association, Inc., J. Henry Waugh, Prop. evoke this mood well.
I hope any readers enjoy remembering these names as I do and will perhaps include Karl Spooner in any future list. (Full disclosure: I have no personal connection with Spooner except his haunting baseball card.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on May 1, 2021 7:07:20 GMT -5
I resisted responding to this post at first because I was not involved in this particular aspect of this discussion, but I do have two further points to make about Spooner. First, I wrote this particular post and tried to make sure that Eric would see it because everything I have read by him (a lot) suggested to me that he would enjoy and appreciate this information. If Spooner's is not the greatest MLB pitching debut ever (over a couple of games), it's close. My second reason is that one of the joys in baseball resides in the short careers of guys like this: players who dream of a cup-of-coffee in the Show; flashes-in-the-pan (Dusty Rhodes in 1954, Bill Rohr for the Sox in 1967, I think) who explode on the scene and then disappear quickly; one-year stars (The Bird, Joe Charbonneau -- every franchise has one) who then fade away because of injury or an insurmountable weakness; and then the potential greats who die too soon (Harry Agganis, Ernie Davis, Jose Fernandez). I enjoy remembering them: nostalgia, poignancy, and tragedy are part of the game. Movies: Rudy and Field of Dreams (Shoeless Joe and Moonlight Graham); and literature: George Plimpton's Sidd Finch, and the Herb Score-like death of pitching phenom Damon Rutherford, riding a long string of scoreless and hitless innings, in Robert Coover's Universal Baseball Association, Inc., J. Henry Waugh, Prop. evoke this mood well. I hope any readers enjoy remembering these names as I do and will perhaps include Karl Spooner in any future list. (Full disclosure: I have no personal connection with Spooner except his haunting baseball card.) I had certainly heard of Spooner, sort of the much less-well-known pitching version of Pete Reiser. But I really didn't know his story, which is really something. He may have been the closest thing to Steve Dalkowski in velocity, only he learned decent command on his own and certainly had the talent to be a superstar.
Special props for mentioning the Coover novel, second to The Natural in my baseball fiction pantheon (then Shoeless Joe, If I Never Get Back, Brittle Innings, Things Invisible to See, and the extremely obscure The Last Man is Out. I've never read The Southpaw or Bang the Drum Slowly; you'll note that every book I've named is either science fiction, fantasy, magic realism, or postmodern fabulation). I invited Coover to our literary sf conference, which he couldn't do because it was at the wrong time of year, but he invited me and the founder / conference chair to a conference of his own at Brown and then gave us free passes to the dinner for the program participants. Total gentleman. We ended up at a table with our writer friend Chip (Samuel R.) Delany, but more entertainingly, with notorious "transgressive" (Wikipedia) punk postmodernist Kathy Acker, who was of course the polar opposite of her print persona, total sweetheart, and was over the moon to meet Chip, whom she idolized. I was sitting next to her and Chip was opposite us and I just let them talk. Memorable evening.
|
|
|
Post by soxinjersey on May 1, 2021 13:47:31 GMT -5
Dhalgren has been looking at me from my book shelves for more years than I care to remember. Maybe it's finally time to pull him out...
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on May 28, 2021 15:11:02 GMT -5
A nice little overlay here showing two sliders with distinct velocity and shape....also a link to article in the Globe on his progression:
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,092
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on May 28, 2021 17:43:56 GMT -5
I remember seeing the 88 mph slider and being very confused
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jul 1, 2021 11:37:55 GMT -5
So half way through the season, and Whitlock has thrown 38 innings. Innings by month 13.1 in April, 11 in May, 13.2 in June, a pretty light workload (which I am quite sure is intentional). At the current pace he should be around 60-70 innings come late August. The reason I bring it up, could Whitlock convert to a starting role sometime in late August to strengthen a potential Playoff Rotation?
Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Erod sounds like the kind of rotation that can win against anyone in a Playoff Series.
Get Whitlock about a half dozen starts from late August to the end of the season, let him go 4-5 innings the first few and try to get him to 6-7 the last few and he'd probably be around 100-110 innings by the end of the regular season. Playoff innings would be hard to guess, but if the Sox could make a World Series run he might make 5-6 more starts and potentially 30-40 more innings. So maybe somewhere between 130-150 innings if the Sox were to make it to the World Series. My guess is that the Sox probably don't want to go anywhere near that number of innings with Whitlock this year, but I just can't see this team making it through 3 playoff series with Richards, Perez, and Erod in the rotation (I'm still hoping that Erod gets straight, but don't think we can expect much better from Perez or Richards).
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jul 1, 2021 11:43:57 GMT -5
While a rotation with Whitlock would probably be the best rotation they could come up with, they are not likely to do that. 1) That's too many innings. They are clearly watching his innings and don't want to push him too much coming back from Tommy John. 2) He's probably been their best reliever this year. He's definitely their most useful reliever. He can come in at any point and either get you out of a jam or pitch multiple innings if needed. I'd rather have him in that role in the playoffs than as a starter pitching every four days or so.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 1, 2021 11:56:21 GMT -5
Ian has a sidebar tweet where he mentions Houck being brought up for a Whitlock-like role. That would be a pretty interesting playoff staff, I think: Sale/Eovaldi/Rodriguez once or twice through the order (Sale maybe still limited), Whitlock/Houck another time through the order, Taylor/Ottavino/Barnes to finish it up.
In short, I think Whitlock is really valuable in his current role and might be even more so in the playoffs so I don't see any reason to mess with it.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jul 1, 2021 11:59:02 GMT -5
The way the game is going, in the playoffs Whitlock would probably pitch about the same number of innings in the bullpen or starting, so it doesn't really matter. He'd probably need to be throwing a no hitter to sniff the 6th inning of a game he starts
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 1, 2021 12:10:02 GMT -5
Yeah I can't see them putting him in the rotation this year and like julyanmorley's point a lot.
Also, hasn't this year taught us not to just punt on a guy who's struggling? A month ago Pivetta was probably your playoff no. 3 starter. Now he's not even sniffing the rotation?
Let's see what things look like in September. Playoff bullpen is going to be full of guys who can give them length such that you can keep the starters on a pretty short leash.
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jul 1, 2021 12:15:24 GMT -5
Yeah I can't see them putting him in the rotation this year and like julyanmorley's point a lot. Also, hasn't this year taught us not to just punt on a guy who's struggling? A month ago Pivetta was probably your playoff no. 3 starter. Now he's not even sniffing the rotation? Let's see what things look like in September. Playoff bullpen is going to be full of guys who can give them length such that you can keep the starters on a pretty short leash. Damn, I just totally left out Pivetta, lol. So maybe Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Erod. or, how about Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Leiter
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 1, 2021 12:15:49 GMT -5
It is very sensible to continue being patient with Whitlock and very hard to continue that restraint when watching him pitch.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 1, 2021 14:05:01 GMT -5
Yeah I can't see them putting him in the rotation this year and like julyanmorley's point a lot. Also, hasn't this year taught us not to just punt on a guy who's struggling? A month ago Pivetta was probably your playoff no. 3 starter. Now he's not even sniffing the rotation? Let's see what things look like in September. Playoff bullpen is going to be full of guys who can give them length such that you can keep the starters on a pretty short leash. Damn, I just totally left out Pivetta, lol. So maybe Sale, Eovaldi, Pivetta, Erod. or, how about Sale, Eovaldi, Whitlock, Leiter I’ve got Scherzer in my playoff rotation. If we got Scherzer for prospects. I think we can flip Martin Perez for a prospect. Given his great contract.
|
|
|