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.
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 9:25:20 GMT -5
Post by brendan98 on Aug 25, 2021 9:25:20 GMT -5
I was going to ask who should replace Barnes as the closer, but thought I'd see who thinks he should be given more opportunities.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 9:29:48 GMT -5
Post by shagworthy on Aug 25, 2021 9:29:48 GMT -5
I'm going with Taylor, even though he's scuffled lately. I just think Houck and Whitlock are too valuable from a multi-inning perspective to confine them to one inning. Otto, Sawamura and Barnes have the same control issues. I'd be interested crazily enough to see if we could get Richards head on straight and if he humps up for one inning if he could find success there..
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,771
|
Post by mobaz on Aug 25, 2021 9:32:34 GMT -5
I'm going with Houck and bring up Seabold. Let's see how that pitching depth works for us!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 25, 2021 10:50:11 GMT -5
I like the idea of Seabold replacing Houck in the rotation and Houck being the closer.
I see this as a good temporary solution. They have to get Barnes on track. He can't suddenly have forgotten how to pitch. If/when they get him on track, then you can put him back at closer and move Houck into the same role that Whitlock has been doing - that is if Seabold is pitching well enough. If not then you'd move Houck back into the rotation.
I'm glad Robles was able to overpower the bottom of the Twins' order but I'd hate for Cora to anoint him the closer. Sooner or later his wildness and the ineffectiveness that he showed with the Twins and the Sox earlier on will resurface at the worst times.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,021
Member is Online
|
Post by cdj on Aug 25, 2021 11:13:56 GMT -5
Dastardly to put Sawamura in the poll and not Robles after last night
Han. Sel
Hansel. So hot right now. Hansel.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Aug 25, 2021 11:14:53 GMT -5
Taylor, for me. Would like Houck and Whitlock doing the same bulk reliever/high leverage role moving forward, this year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 25, 2021 11:45:50 GMT -5
I mean, what's the timeframe here?
Barnes is scuffling right now so if they did something in the short term to rest him then fine but we're not asking who should the closer be going forward forever and ever right?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 25, 2021 11:58:24 GMT -5
I mean, what's the timeframe here? Barnes is scuffling right now so if they did something in the short term to rest him then fine but we're not asking who should the closer be going forward forever and ever right? I wouldn't think so until the offseason. For the 2021 Red Sox to succeed they are best with Matt Barnes as an all-star closer. But for about a week or so I think that somebody else should close. I'd be interested in the Seabold call-up and Houck to the closer spot on a temporary basis. Give Barnes a few days to get a mental break and then work him back in middle relief and if he starts looking more like himself reinstall him as the closer. Perhaps in the offseason the Sox go get another closer or a high leverage guy who can close if Barnes should falter next season.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,793
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Aug 25, 2021 12:00:44 GMT -5
Just ride the hot hand/play it by the situation. We have a bullpen full of middle relievers right now
|
|
|
Post by soxinnj on Aug 25, 2021 12:23:58 GMT -5
I’ll probably get destroyed for this, but I think give Robles a chance. Taylor can’t close because of how bad he is against RH hitters. I love Whitlock as he is right now. Has Houck ever thrown in back-to-back days?
Robles has done it before. And aside from the back-to-back bad outings on 8/5 and 8/6, he’s been solid for the Sox. And he looked fine last night. He could be a guy who throws better in higher leverage situations as opposed to coming in down 10-1 or up 9-0. He has the stuff for it.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 25, 2021 12:58:27 GMT -5
Give Barnes a short stint on the IR and bring up Seabold to do a Houck/Whitlock type role to fill his spot. If Barnes comes back and is still not dominant as a closer then you go to the by committee strategy. While Barnes is out and you have Seabold you have the flexibility to use anyone, including Whitlock and Houck, to see how they fare in that role. At this point the Sox can't rely on Barnes so they need to do something to change the narrative before the playoffs start.
If you want to see what the future of pitching staffs look like in Boston just look down south at TBay. They have fewer quality starts on the season than the Sox, which is in the bottom 4 in baseball. But their team era is over a half run lower and close to the best in the AL. Bloom is the one that has pioneered this type of staff and it is a big reason why TBay is competitive every year on the cheap. They have 11 different players with 1 save or more this season.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 25, 2021 12:59:52 GMT -5
Here's my take on closers in general:
The whole concept is dumb.
What happened is, some sportswriter came up with a basically arbitrary stat 50 years ago which he called the "save," and we've been enacting Goodhart's Law ever since: we've designed a whole important pitching role after what is supposed to be a measure of pitcher effectiveness, though it is not actually a very good measure of what it's supposed to be measuring.
So if you put your best reliever in the closer role, you're squandering him in a bunch of low-leverage situations (i.e., 2- and 3-run leads in the 9th inning, or facing the bottom of the lineup).
People seem convinced that there is such a thing as "closer mentality," and I'm willing to believe that could be true. In which case you should pick whichever reliever has the best mentality to be a closer, even (or especially) if they're not the best reliever. The thing that makes me a little skeptical of that is how sometimes closers who supposedly have the proper mentality seem to just lose it all of a sudden (e.g., Kimbrel, Chapman, pretty much any but a handful of closers in history).
If I had my way it would be bullpen-by-committe forevermore. If "closer mentality" is really important, though, I dunno... Maybe Brasier, once he's ready. Remember when he told what's-him-name to "get back in the ****** box"? That seemed pretty closer mentalitish.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 13:30:45 GMT -5
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 25, 2021 13:30:45 GMT -5
Here's my take on closers in general:
The whole concept is dumb.
What happened is, some sportswriter came up with a basically arbitrary stat 50 years ago which he called the "save," and we've been enacting Goodhart's Law ever since: we've designed a whole important pitching role after what is supposed to be a measure of pitcher effectiveness, though it is not actually a very good measure of what it's supposed to be measuring.
So if you put your best reliever in the closer role, you're squandering him in a bunch of low-leverage situations (i.e., 2- and 3-run leads in the 9th inning, or facing the bottom of the lineup).
People seem convinced that there is such a thing as "closer mentality," and I'm willing to believe that could be true. In which case you should pick whichever reliever has the best mentality to be a closer, even (or especially) if they're not the best reliever. The thing that makes me a little skeptical of that is how sometimes closers who supposedly have the proper mentality seem to just lose it all of a sudden (e.g., Kimbrel, Chapman, pretty much any but a handful of closers in history).
If I had my way it would be bullpen-by-committe forevermore. If "closer mentality" is really important, though, I dunno... Maybe Brasier, once he's ready. Remember when he told what's-him-name to "get back in the ****** box"? That seemed pretty closer mentalitish.
I agree completely but.... baseball is kind of funny in how players and routine and confidence and structure and the mental aspect of the game lends itself to sticking to what they know. Having said that just look at my post prior to yours and I think Chaim agrees with you also. But it takes time and an understanding from those on the staff that that is going to be how it is, it needs to be embraced. I think the Sox have the guys to do it, just look at how Perez and Richards have elevated their pitches in a relief role. Heck Richards could make for a good closer type.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 13:39:47 GMT -5
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 25, 2021 13:39:47 GMT -5
Here's my take on closers in general: The whole concept is dumb. What happened is, some sportswriter came up with a basically arbitrary stat 50 years ago which he called the "save," and we've been enacting Goodhart's Law ever since: we've designed a whole important pitching role after what is supposed to be a measure of pitcher effectiveness, though it is not actually a very good measure of what it's supposed to be measuring. So if you put your best reliever in the closer role, you're squandering him in a bunch of low-leverage situations (i.e., 2- and 3-run leads in the 9th inning, or facing the bottom of the lineup). People seem convinced that there is such a thing as "closer mentality," and I'm willing to believe that could be true. In which case you should pick whichever reliever has the best mentality to be a closer, even (or especially) if they're not the best reliever. The thing that makes me a little skeptical of that is how sometimes closers who supposedly have the proper mentality seem to just lose it all of a sudden (e.g., Kimbrel, Chapman, pretty much any but a handful of closers in history). If I had my way it would be bullpen-by-committe forevermore. If "closer mentality" is really important, though, I dunno... Maybe Brasier, once he's ready. Remember when he told what's-him-name to "get back in the ****** box"? That seemed pretty closer mentalitish.
I don't think that "save" is good as an evaluating tool, but I don't dismiss the validity of the closer's role. People will say, "Well, the real save was in the 7th inning or in the 2nd inning",etc, but really all of that is hindsight because nobody knows during the game for sure which inning will wind up being the most critical. The only thing that is certain is that if you blow the lead prior to the 9th you have at least an inning to catch up, but if you blow it in the bottom of the 9th and fall behind, you don't get a chance to catch up. People will say, "But 3 run leads are low leverage". I get that, but I would say in a situation where the game ends if you get 3 outs as opposed to continuing on with the chance of losing that lead, I would want the guy least likely to screw up that lead. You can say, "95% of the time, any reliever will wind that game up with a win." Probably true, but I'll be damned if I want a pitcher in there who's less likely to blow through the inning and is more likely to give up baserunners and raise my blood pressure. Your best reliever is less likely to do that. So I do push back against the concept that closers don't matter. I don't know about "Mentality". I think there's something to it, but it can be over-applied. I mean, look at Kimbrel. He's a HOFer as a closer and a minor league pitcher in any other role. He must feed off the adrenaline rush. That's a human emotion. Some get that rush. Others get nervous. Either way, I want my best reliever out there in that situation. I've often heard of closer by committee but as the 2003 Sox demonstrated it can be problematic. Pitchers are creatures of habit and respond better to hierarchy and being prepared to pitch, know their role, etc. I know people hate that, but I think those things matter to players. Unfortunately for the Sox, their best reliever is a guy coming off TJS that they're treating with kid gloves, who has not worked in back to back days at all this year - or ever, and is being groomed to start next season. I don't think it's a "mentality" problem as far as Barnes goes. I don't think he has suddenly gotten afraid to close.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 13:41:40 GMT -5
Post by soxfansince67 on Aug 25, 2021 13:41:40 GMT -5
is it time to kick the tires on Feltman? There was talk (last few years) of him being ML ready- has he taken that much of a step back? I do think there is not only a "closer mentality", but the opposite as well. I think they key is throwing strikes - keeping traffic off of the bases, and this is where Whitlock is really good, and recent Ottavino and Barnes are not. I think that Barnes has for whatever reason lost his confidence. First half he was just firing away - when he is not going well, he takes a long time - I think he is lost in his head a bit. If Brasier's arm is OK, he was pretty good at not getting himself in immediate trouble by walking someone right away. I think Robles is too volatile - it is hard to know what you will get with him nightly. Sawamura doesn't seem quite right (yet). I don't see Richards, Perez or Taylor as good fits.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 14:02:43 GMT -5
Post by incandenza on Aug 25, 2021 14:02:43 GMT -5
Here's my take on closers in general: The whole concept is dumb. What happened is, some sportswriter came up with a basically arbitrary stat 50 years ago which he called the "save," and we've been enacting Goodhart's Law ever since: we've designed a whole important pitching role after what is supposed to be a measure of pitcher effectiveness, though it is not actually a very good measure of what it's supposed to be measuring. So if you put your best reliever in the closer role, you're squandering him in a bunch of low-leverage situations (i.e., 2- and 3-run leads in the 9th inning, or facing the bottom of the lineup). People seem convinced that there is such a thing as "closer mentality," and I'm willing to believe that could be true. In which case you should pick whichever reliever has the best mentality to be a closer, even (or especially) if they're not the best reliever. The thing that makes me a little skeptical of that is how sometimes closers who supposedly have the proper mentality seem to just lose it all of a sudden (e.g., Kimbrel, Chapman, pretty much any but a handful of closers in history). If I had my way it would be bullpen-by-committe forevermore. If "closer mentality" is really important, though, I dunno... Maybe Brasier, once he's ready. Remember when he told what's-him-name to "get back in the ****** box"? That seemed pretty closer mentalitish.
I don't think that "save" is good as an evaluating tool, but I don't dismiss the validity of the closer's role. People will say, "Well, the real save was in the 7th inning or in the 2nd inning",etc, but really all of that is hindsight because nobody knows during the game for sure which inning will wind up being the most critical. To a point this is true, but we do have leverage index, which tells us how high leverage a situation is as it's happening. If that stat had been invented instead of the save back in the '70s or whenever it was, maybe the "closer" would simply have been the guy who was brought in in high leverage situations. Everyone would talk about how important it was to have the "closer mentality" when you came in with a tie score with two runners on and 1 out in the 7th. Etc....
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 14:35:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by soxinsf on Aug 25, 2021 14:35:01 GMT -5
It cannot be Barnes until he gets his game back under control. His first half success was a welcome development, but there are reasons why his career path did not lead earlier to the closing role. This team does not have an established, proven closer so Barnes was the best choice. Even if Barnes gets back on track, I would prefer a better closer next year with Barnes going back to 7th or 8th inning roles.
At the moment then, who closes? It almost certainly will be closer by committee until someone emerges. If I am Cora, I try Richards, Hansel, Whitlock and, as a last act of desperation, Houck. But only Houck if we are still contending. Otherwise, he stays in the rotation.
This situation is just another manifestation of the Sox strategy for this year re salary cap limits.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 25, 2021 14:46:47 GMT -5
I don't think that "save" is good as an evaluating tool, but I don't dismiss the validity of the closer's role. People will say, "Well, the real save was in the 7th inning or in the 2nd inning",etc, but really all of that is hindsight because nobody knows during the game for sure which inning will wind up being the most critical. To a point this is true, but we do have leverage index, which tells us how high leverage a situation is as it's happening. If that stat had been invented instead of the save back in the '70s or whenever it was, maybe the "closer" would simply have been the guy who was brought in in high leverage situations. Everyone would talk about how important it was to have the "closer mentality" when you came in with a tie score with two runners on and 1 out in the 7th. Etc.... Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how would you know what the highest leverage situation of the game is going to be until after the game ends? In other words you're clinging to a 4-3 lead in the bottom of the 7th with the bases loaded and 1 out and you call on your ace reliever. He gets out of the inning and you say, "Yup, that's the biggest situation of the game", but then you pull him after the 8th inning as he's reached 40 pitches and you're still clinging to a 4-3 lead but now in the bottom of the 9th the new pitcher has loaded the bases with no outs and you're making another pitching change. You thought the 7th inning situation was the highest the game was going to have, but whoops, in the 9th a bigger one presented itself. Now what? You don't know truly what the highest leverage situation of the game is going to be until after the game is over.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Aug 25, 2021 15:21:19 GMT -5
Let me preface this by saying I think the way the Sox are going to go is the way the board is voting, but historically speaking it has almost always been a mistake, not because Closer, or Set Up roles have any intrinsic meaning, but because the other and quite bigger part of the game, the mental side. It's why Kimbrel can be a draft horse in the 9th and a Shetland Pony any other inning. It would take years of grooming your pitchers from signing to the major league to combat the comfort and routine of knowing when you will likely be used.
I'd also point out that there aren't as many "rubber arm" guys in the league as there has been in times past. It's all about maximum effort 100% of the time and that leads to guys being unavailable on back to back days and so on and so forth.
|
|
carl4sox
Rookie
Posts: 162
Member is Online
|
Post by carl4sox on Aug 25, 2021 16:26:00 GMT -5
How about Matt to the IL and bring up Ort?
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 19:16:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bosoxnation on Aug 25, 2021 19:16:18 GMT -5
How about we just go by matchups and history. Committee is the best way since we didn’t get Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 22:09:15 GMT -5
Post by soxinsf on Aug 25, 2021 22:09:15 GMT -5
Forget Robles? Who is next in the committee? I would try Richards.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,021
Member is Online
|
Closer
Aug 25, 2021 23:09:10 GMT -5
via mobile
manfred likes this
Post by cdj on Aug 25, 2021 23:09:10 GMT -5
How about we just go by matchups and history. Committee is the best way since we didn’t get Kimbrel. I don’t think Kimbrel would be the best way even if we did get him lol
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 6:13:59 GMT -5
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 26, 2021 6:13:59 GMT -5
To a point this is true, but we do have leverage index, which tells us how high leverage a situation is as it's happening. If that stat had been invented instead of the save back in the '70s or whenever it was, maybe the "closer" would simply have been the guy who was brought in in high leverage situations. Everyone would talk about how important it was to have the "closer mentality" when you came in with a tie score with two runners on and 1 out in the 7th. Etc.... Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how would you know what the highest leverage situation of the game is going to be until after the game ends? In other words you're clinging to a 4-3 lead in the bottom of the 7th with the bases loaded and 1 out and you call on your ace reliever. He gets out of the inning and you say, "Yup, that's the biggest situation of the game", but then you pull him after the 8th inning as he's reached 40 pitches and you're still clinging to a 4-3 lead but now in the bottom of the 9th the new pitcher has loaded the bases with no outs and you're making another pitching change. You thought the 7th inning situation was the highest the game was going to have, but whoops, in the 9th a bigger one presented itself. Now what? You don't know truly what the highest leverage situation of the game is going to be until after the game is over. This is a bit of a strawman take. If you have a high leverage situation in the 7th that you don't take care of then it is going to reduce the chances of another high leverage situation occurring and your chances of winning. Games aren't played with the benefit of the armchair QB so you have to take the game as it is going. The thing is that if you have built your pen well and with the strategy that TBay employs then you have many guys with the skill set and mindset that they can get the job done. The whole role thing is psychological.
|
|
|
Closer
Aug 26, 2021 8:23:27 GMT -5
Post by incandenza on Aug 26, 2021 8:23:27 GMT -5
To a point this is true, but we do have leverage index, which tells us how high leverage a situation is as it's happening. If that stat had been invented instead of the save back in the '70s or whenever it was, maybe the "closer" would simply have been the guy who was brought in in high leverage situations. Everyone would talk about how important it was to have the "closer mentality" when you came in with a tie score with two runners on and 1 out in the 7th. Etc.... Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how would you know what the highest leverage situation of the game is going to be until after the game ends? In other words you're clinging to a 4-3 lead in the bottom of the 7th with the bases loaded and 1 out and you call on your ace reliever. He gets out of the inning and you say, "Yup, that's the biggest situation of the game", but then you pull him after the 8th inning as he's reached 40 pitches and you're still clinging to a 4-3 lead but now in the bottom of the 9th the new pitcher has loaded the bases with no outs and you're making another pitching change. You thought the 7th inning situation was the highest the game was going to have, but whoops, in the 9th a bigger one presented itself. Now what? You don't know truly what the highest leverage situation of the game is going to be until after the game is over. This is why I said it's true to a point - we can't know the future for certain. But in your scenario the 7th inning situation definitely is high leverage, whereas the 9th inning situation is only something that might happen. You definitely need a good reliever in the 7th, regardless of what happens later.
By contrast, the way things work now is that you hold your best reliever back for 1-3 run 9th inning leads. If you don't use him in the 7th and lose the lead he never gets in the game. Or, if it's a 2- or 3-run 9th inning lead, you squander him in a low leverage situation.
|
|
|