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.
Who should be the Red Sox closer in 2022?
|
Post by incandenza on May 6, 2022 11:57:12 GMT -5
Well if the answer to every problem the Red Sox have is "they should have spent more money," these conversations aren't going to be very interesting. There's just nothing to engage with there. I mean I, too, think the billionaires should be put up against the wall when the revolution comes, but in actual practice every MLB owner has limits to what they're willing to spend, and in that context, the Red Sox are reliably one of the highest-spending teams.
So I'm still waiting to hear what would be worth sacrificing to have signed Jansen. Again, if he is really *that* valuable it shouldn't be too hard to say who you'd have passed on instead.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 6, 2022 12:06:24 GMT -5
Well if the answer to every problem the Red Sox have is "they should have spent more money," these conversations aren't going to be very interesting. There's just nothing to engage with there. I mean I, too, think the billionaires should be put up against the wall when the revolution comes, but in actual practice every MLB owner has limits to what they're willing to spend, and in that context, the Red Sox are reliably one of the highest-spending teams. So I'm still waiting to hear what would be worth sacrificing to have signed Jansen. Again, if he is really *that* valuable it shouldn't be too hard to say who you'd have passed on instead. Well, hell, I’m not a huge fan, but I’d have certainly not signed Paxton, to start. So there $6 mill of the $16. You could pass on Diekman then. There is another $3.5 million, so you are at $6.5 million unaccounted for, I suppose. They could eat that difference, or keep picking, but those are two moves you could easily not make to account for a lot of the money. It is not like the money they spent in the off-season went to things that are absolutely essential. I mean, hell, Rich Hill has been great, but if I must, I’d rather a lights-out closer than a 4-inning starter every 6th day. So there is another $5 million. My point is there is not a strong case that the Sox couldn’t gave spent $16 million and kept salary where it is without harm. They made decisions, and some of those appear to have been mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 6, 2022 12:08:18 GMT -5
Turning a $15-16m contract into a $500m payroll is not a realistic argument. Closer was a huge question this off-season (and the impetus for some clever person to start a thread about it with a poll that attracted 57 responses). Jansen at $16m was a legitimate option for a big-market team with no CBT worries. Jansen is 7/7 in saves and has already had a streak of 8 straight hitless outings. Would he have closed out all of the Sox save situations so far? Maybe not but I'd sure as hell take my chances compared with what we've had so far. Whitlock's blown save occurred in the 8th (in his third inning of work), and then Brasier blew another save in the same game in the 10th. Barnes blew one in the 8th. Austin Davis blew one in the 7th, and then Diekman blew one of his two later that game in the 9th (as far as I can see, only Diekman has blown saves in the 9th this year, one of which came from an inherited runner on a single). Robles blew one in the 10th. Some of these save situations wouldn't have involved Jansen regardless of whether he was on the team. Jansen hasn't pitched more than an inning this year, and last year he got six outs once, five outs once, and four outs five times, he's not a guy you'd stretch for extra outs at this point. If the pen's only issue was holding the lead in the 9th inning in conventional save opportunities it'd be an easier argument, but they are blowing saves when you need your setup men to do their job too. I'd also point out the lack of offense has put a lot of pressure on the pen in some of these situations.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 6, 2022 12:24:18 GMT -5
Well if the answer to every problem the Red Sox have is "they should have spent more money," these conversations aren't going to be very interesting. There's just nothing to engage with there. I mean I, too, think the billionaires should be put up against the wall when the revolution comes, but in actual practice every MLB owner has limits to what they're willing to spend, and in that context, the Red Sox are reliably one of the highest-spending teams. So I'm still waiting to hear what would be worth sacrificing to have signed Jansen. Again, if he is really *that* valuable it shouldn't be too hard to say who you'd have passed on instead. Well, hell, I’m not a huge fan, but I’d have certainly not signed Paxton, to start. So there $6 mill of the $16. You could pass on Diekman then. There is another $3.5 million, so you are at $6.5 million unaccounted for, I suppose. They could eat that difference, or keep picking, but those are two moves you could easily not make to account for a lot of the money. It is not like the money they spent in the off-season went to things that are absolutely essential. I mean, hell, Rich Hill has been great, but if I must, I’d rather a lights-out closer than a 4-inning starter every 6th day. So there is another $5 million. My point is there is not a strong case that the Sox couldn’t gave spent $16 million and kept salary where it is without harm. They made decisions, and some of those appear to have been mistakes. It's all nickels and dimes once you pass the luxury tax - especially with all the cash they have coming off the books after this year. It reminds me of the 2002-2003 hubris about "closer by committee." Learning that lesson led to spending big bucks on Keith Foulke in 2004.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 6, 2022 12:25:55 GMT -5
Well if the answer to every problem the Red Sox have is "they should have spent more money," these conversations aren't going to be very interesting. There's just nothing to engage with there. I mean I, too, think the billionaires should be put up against the wall when the revolution comes, but in actual practice every MLB owner has limits to what they're willing to spend, and in that context, the Red Sox are reliably one of the highest-spending teams. So I'm still waiting to hear what would be worth sacrificing to have signed Jansen. Again, if he is really *that* valuable it shouldn't be too hard to say who you'd have passed on instead. Well, hell, I’m not a huge fan, but I’d have certainly not signed Paxton, to start. So there $6 mill of the $16. You could pass on Diekman then. There is another $3.5 million, so you are at $6.5 million unaccounted for, I suppose. They could eat that difference, or keep picking, but those are two moves you could easily not make to account for a lot of the money. It is not like the money they spent in the off-season went to things that are absolutely essential. I mean, hell, Rich Hill has been great, but if I must, I’d rather a lights-out closer than a 4-inning starter every 6th day. So there is another $5 million. My point is there is not a strong case that the Sox couldn’t gave spent $16 million and kept salary where it is without harm. They made decisions, and some of those appear to have been mistakes. As beasleyrockah points out, Jansen only addresses part of the bullpen's issues - basically the situations in which, by royal decree, closers are allowed to be used, i.e. the 9th inning, with a 1-3 run lead.
Or to put it another way: Red Sox relievers have thrown 108 innings. Subtract out the piggyback innings from Houck and Whitlock and it's still 92 innings. Jansen has thrown 10 innings. So that addition doesn't provide a magic bullet; it greatly improves about 10% of the bullpen by innings.
For that you would give up Hill, along with whatever value they get from Paxton (plus the option of bringing him back next season).
I obviously disagree with that. I don't think it's crazy, but I do think we should be clear about what that exchange would mean: a much thinner starting rotation, and a bullpen that would be better but not that much better.
(And to be clear, I'm not saying the way they spent money in the offseason is beyond criticism. I'm just trying to point out the opportunity cost of signing a guy like Jansen. Who, incidentally, is projected for an ERA in like the mid-3s for the rest of the season; it's not like he's Mariano or something.)
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 6, 2022 12:37:00 GMT -5
Well, hell, I’m not a huge fan, but I’d have certainly not signed Paxton, to start. So there $6 mill of the $16. You could pass on Diekman then. There is another $3.5 million, so you are at $6.5 million unaccounted for, I suppose. They could eat that difference, or keep picking, but those are two moves you could easily not make to account for a lot of the money. It is not like the money they spent in the off-season went to things that are absolutely essential. I mean, hell, Rich Hill has been great, but if I must, I’d rather a lights-out closer than a 4-inning starter every 6th day. So there is another $5 million. My point is there is not a strong case that the Sox couldn’t gave spent $16 million and kept salary where it is without harm. They made decisions, and some of those appear to have been mistakes. As beasleyrockah points out, Jansen only addresses part of the bullpen's issues - basically the situations in which, by royal decree, closers are allowed to be used, i.e. the 9th inning, with a 1-3 run lead.
Or to put it another way: Red Sox relievers have thrown 108 innings. Subtract out the piggyback innings from Houck and Whitlock and it's still 92 innings. Jansen has thrown 10 innings. So that addition doesn't provide a magic bullet; it greatly improves about 10% of the bullpen by innings.
For that you would give up Hill, along with whatever value they get from Paxton (plus the option of bringing him back next season).
I obviously disagree with that. I don't think it's crazy, but I do think we should be clear about what that exchange would mean: a much thinner starting rotation, and a bullpen that would be better but not that much better.
Well, truthfully, I expect nothing from Paxton. And Hill would be a bummer, but he is basically half a starter. I mean, a closer might also throw about 60 pitches a week. Still, I’m not arguing for this exchange necessarily. I am merely saying the money is not difficult to account for. Philosophically, I have always believed closers are more valuable than mere numbers. They frighten the other team into shorter strategies. If the 9th seems like doom, you need to score earlier and press. All season, I’ve felt like the Sox can be 0-0 through 5 and the game is getting away because the Sox can’t keep it up with their pen. Last thing, and this is likely not quite the same topic. On any given day, there is some chance a reliever doesn’t have it. Elite guys, that % is low. Mediocre or decent guys, it is higher. So when you go 4 for a starter and expect to string 5 together with 3, 4, 5 guys, the odds at least one doesn’t have it seem pretty good. Having an elite guy, a guy who almost always gas it, as the safety net is huge. It means, a) that in-between number (the guys between the starter and fame-over) drops by 1; and it means if a crisis hits, you have a guy who can get you out.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 6, 2022 13:45:53 GMT -5
As beasleyrockah points out, Jansen only addresses part of the bullpen's issues - basically the situations in which, by royal decree, closers are allowed to be used, i.e. the 9th inning, with a 1-3 run lead.
Or to put it another way: Red Sox relievers have thrown 108 innings. Subtract out the piggyback innings from Houck and Whitlock and it's still 92 innings. Jansen has thrown 10 innings. So that addition doesn't provide a magic bullet; it greatly improves about 10% of the bullpen by innings.
For that you would give up Hill, along with whatever value they get from Paxton (plus the option of bringing him back next season).
I obviously disagree with that. I don't think it's crazy, but I do think we should be clear about what that exchange would mean: a much thinner starting rotation, and a bullpen that would be better but not that much better.
Well, truthfully, I expect nothing from Paxton. And Hill would be a bummer, but he is basically half a starter. I mean, a closer might also throw about 60 pitches a week. Still, I’m not arguing for this exchange necessarily. I am merely saying the money is not difficult to account for. Philosophically, I have always believed closers are more valuable than mere numbers. They frighten the other team into shorter strategies. If the 9th seems like doom, you need to score earlier and press. All season, I’ve felt like the Sox can be 0-0 through 5 and the game is getting away because the Sox can’t keep it up with their pen. Last thing, and this is likely not quite the same topic. On any given day, there is some chance a reliever doesn’t have it. Elite guys, that % is low. Mediocre or decent guys, it is higher. So when you go 4 for a starter and expect to string 5 together with 3, 4, 5 guys, the odds at least one doesn’t have it seem pretty good. Having an elite guy, a guy who almost always gas it, as the safety net is huge. It means, a) that in-between number (the guys between the starter and fame-over) drops by 1; and it means if a crisis hits, you have a guy who can get you out. I think I buy that elite closers punch above their weight in innings pitched. My main criticism is that there are really only like 2 or 3 elite closers at any time, and unless they're Mariano Rivera you never know when they're going to suddenly stink. E.g., Kimbrel. Or Barnes. Or again, look at Jansen's ~3.50 ERA/FIP projections; is that really "elite"? It's only a hair better than Josh Taylor's.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 6, 2022 20:46:32 GMT -5
Please stop talking about blown saves when they cannot possibly have been saves. You have to compare blown saves to saves plus holds.
Really, the only stat worth anything for relievers is WPA.
And no, Jansen wouldn't be worth 5 extra wins for the Red Sox already. Also, it's easy to use the past to make judgements, but come back and talk when Jansen looks like he did the last few years.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,227
|
Post by cdj on May 6, 2022 22:03:16 GMT -5
Don’t have to worry about your closer if you’re never winning games. We’re playing chess
|
|
|
Post by joshuacoffee on May 10, 2022 7:52:38 GMT -5
Spot on about not getting Jensen (or any expensive reliever) not being the issue with this team. Outside of last night, blown saves is not a regular issue for this team. There are no blown saves when you don't score enough runs to be in a save situation. I'm not sure I'd dump the money into Freeman either. I think we were just in a position this year that, unless we emptied the farm again, the Sox were not going to be very good. People forget that the starting pitching the first half of last year (and Barnes) was pitching way over their heads almost to a man. Without that happening again, and the law of regression to mean said it probably wasn't going to, this was going to be a tough year even if the offense was better than what we've seen so far. The one thing everyone should be able to agree on is that Matt Barnes should not be the closer at this point. I don't know why, but he seems like he's done. Um, yeah it is. It's not the only issue certainly but it's a prominent issue, possibly the most prominent one. It wasn't just one night. The offense will be better. Eventually Story, Hernandez, and Verdugo will hit better. Add in Devers, X, and JDM, it's decent lineup although it's not as deep as others. But the Sox will continue to blow close games late and they're also 0-5 in extra innings. The bullpen is a mess. Full mea culpa on that statement. They've just been spreading the BS (oh, the irony of that acronym) around so there's not just one guy racking them up. But yep, as a team they are leading the league and there's even some space between them and the next highest BS count. Blown saves is clearly a problem. Still, even with Jensen, if the Sox won every game they have a BS in (they have two games with multiple BS), they are still third in the east and only a half game up on Toronto for the fourth spot. Since half the league goes to the playoffs now, I guess that would put them in the chase for a wild card, but without much chance of winning a post season series. Story will probably hit. Verdugo will probably hit better than he has of late (though he's always been more potential than actual). Hernandez might get better, although its not like there's a long track record of him hitting well as a regular player. I'd argue that there's a better history of Robles being a good reliever than there is of Hernandez being a good hitter, and Robles has 2 of the BS this season. And even if those three hitters turn things around we're still getting no hitting from the catcher, right field, and first base positions. It's tough to not get hitting from right field or first base, it's real bad to no get it from both. None of that excuses my really bad take of "blown saves is not a regular issue for this team" though. That's just embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 10, 2022 8:33:59 GMT -5
Um, yeah it is. It's not the only issue certainly but it's a prominent issue, possibly the most prominent one. It wasn't just one night. The offense will be better. Eventually Story, Hernandez, and Verdugo will hit better. Add in Devers, X, and JDM, it's decent lineup although it's not as deep as others. But the Sox will continue to blow close games late and they're also 0-5 in extra innings. The bullpen is a mess. Full mea culpa on that statement. They've just been spreading the BS (oh, the irony of that acronym) around so there's not just one guy racking them up. But yep, as a team they are leading the league and there's even some space between them and the next highest BS count. Blown saves is clearly a problem. Still, even with Jensen, if the Sox won every game they have a BS in (they have two games with multiple BS), they are still third in the east and only a half game up on Toronto for the fourth spot. Since half the league goes to the playoffs now, I guess that would put them in the chase for a wild card, but without much chance of winning a post season series. Story will probably hit. Verdugo will probably hit better than he has of late (though he's always been more potential than actual). Hernandez might get better, although its not like there's a long track record of him hitting well as a regular player. I'd argue that there's a better history of Robles being a good reliever than there is of Hernandez being a good hitter, and Robles has 2 of the BS this season. And even if those three hitters turn things around we're still getting no hitting from the catcher, right field, and first base positions. It's tough to not get hitting from right field or first base, it's real bad to no get it from both. None of that excuses my really bad take of "blown saves is not a regular issue for this team" though. That's just embarrassing.No, it was a good take! They keep blowing saves because the offense stinks, meaning the bullpen has to be flawless to hold onto leads.
The Red Sox have 8 blown saves. Toronto has 6 and TB and NY both have 4. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 games where the bullpen pitched fine, like on Saturday - 1 run in 3 IP - but the offense did diddly squat in the late innings so that they had no margin for error whatsoever. A passable offense turns those games into wins (and saves), and the margin between the Red Sox and the other teams vanishes.
The biggest problem with the bullpen, of course, has been Barnes. Just goes to show that shelling out big bucks for a Proven Closer is usually a really bad bet.
(Robles' 2 blown saves, incidentally, is the same number as Liam Hendriks, though Robles has an ERA more than two runs lower. His ERA is also more than a run lower than Jansen's. But Jansen has had at least a two run lead in every single one of his save opportunities. He's basically been used as a low leverage reliever. That's one reason he doesn't have any blown saves.)
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,697
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 10, 2022 8:55:01 GMT -5
Full mea culpa on that statement. They've just been spreading the BS (oh, the irony of that acronym) around so there's not just one guy racking them up. But yep, as a team they are leading the league and there's even some space between them and the next highest BS count. Blown saves is clearly a problem. Still, even with Jensen, if the Sox won every game they have a BS in (they have two games with multiple BS), they are still third in the east and only a half game up on Toronto for the fourth spot. Since half the league goes to the playoffs now, I guess that would put them in the chase for a wild card, but without much chance of winning a post season series. Story will probably hit. Verdugo will probably hit better than he has of late (though he's always been more potential than actual). Hernandez might get better, although its not like there's a long track record of him hitting well as a regular player. I'd argue that there's a better history of Robles being a good reliever than there is of Hernandez being a good hitter, and Robles has 2 of the BS this season. And even if those three hitters turn things around we're still getting no hitting from the catcher, right field, and first base positions. It's tough to not get hitting from right field or first base, it's real bad to no get it from both. None of that excuses my really bad take of "blown saves is not a regular issue for this team" though. That's just embarrassing.No, it was a good take! They keep blowing saves because the offense stinks, meaning the bullpen has to be flawless to hold onto leads.
The Red Sox have 8 blown saves. Toronto has 6 and TB and NY both have 4. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 games where the bullpen pitched fine, like on Saturday - 1 run in 3 IP - but the offense did diddly squat in the late innings so that they had no margin for error whatsoever. A passable offense turns those games into wins (and saves), and the margin between the Red Sox and the other teams vanishes. The biggest problem with the bullpen, of course, has been Barnes. Just goes to show that shelling out big bucks for a Proven Closer is usually a really bad bet. (Robles' 2 blown saves, incidentally, is the same number as Liam Hendriks, though Robles has an ERA more than two runs lower. His ERA is also more than a run lower than Jansen's. But Jansen has had at least a two run lead in every single one of his save opportunities. He's basically been used as a low leverage reliever. That's one reason he doesn't have any blown saves.)
Disagree totally. Yes, the offense has wreaked and there's no margin for error with these closers. That's mostly true. Yes, blown saves can be ridiculous when it's coming from a setup man in the 7th inning, etc. I don't look at those. To me, they're blown holds. They can be lethal, but there's still time to come back from those within the game. No, I'm talking about holding a damn lead in the 9th inning, whether it's a 1 run lead, 2 run lead, or a 3 run lead. Then there's the bullpen in extra innings when the game is tied and on the line. Do not take them off the hook for those performances. If you want to tell me the pen has done a good job bridging the gap between the short starts until toward the end of the game, I'll buy it. But don't try to sell me that not having a reliable closer isn't hurting the team, because it is. Yes, they have had mostly 1 run leads because they're offense isn't capable of generating much more than that. But when they had a 3 run lead for Diekman he coughed in up - was he the one who gave up the Springer HR with 2 outs? Can't use the "he must be perfect" line on that one. Most teams do have a number of one run leads to protect, when they're trying to close out a game. The Red Sox track record of closing out those games are abysmal. Each time they are in that situation it becomes Reliever Roulette. You want to argue that one run leads get blown more often than 2 or 3, I'll buy it - makes sense, but if the pen was any good, they wouldn't be 0-6 in extra inning games. Once they blow that lead, they've been getting hammered in the 10th inning. That's on the bullpen and it's preventable, particularly if you get a guy that does the job hanging onto leads, even 1 run leads....closers are supposed to do that most of the time. The Red Sox fail at that a lot more than they succeed, which is unacceptable. I also think relievers do better when there's some sort of bullpen hierarchy. The Red Sox plan seemed to be "cross their fingers" that Barnes could back to being 1st half Barnes. Well, it's not happening. Robles has never been able to hold onto a closing gig because he's not reliable enough. Nobody else is capable apparently. That's why I'd suggest Pivetta. I'd hope he can have the same impact that Tom Gordon did in 1998, when Gordon went a long time without blowing any saves...any that run included 1 run leads where he had to keep the other team off the board. And I think teams that expect to win have to win those 1 run games and hold onto the one run leads in the 9th, or at least be able to win the 10th inning. So yes, I'll agree with you that the offense is a huge culprit and part of the problem - the biggest one, but one that is fixable if guys start playing to career norms and if Duran and Casas can come up midseason and replace two of the weakest links, JBJ and Dalbec, but I don't see the bullpen fixing as is. Barnes isn't getting it back. Robles is Robles, although I'd still pitch him in higher leverage spots in the 7th or even 8th inning. The rest of the guys are guys for the 6th, 7th, or 8th, although the one guy who hasn't been mentioned, that maybe SHOULD get a look if not Pivetta, is Strahm. At least he throws strikes reasonable consistently. But after watching Pivetta last Sept and Oct, coming out of the pen, I think he might have the right mentality for it and his stuff might really play up with the extra adrenaline. As a starter, Pivetta is what he is, a guy good enough to start, but not good enough to lead a rotation, or be consistent from start to start, so that's why I'd do the conversion. Get Houck and Whitlock starting, along with Hill, Eovaldi, and Wacha...of course with injuries that can throw a monkey wrench into that plan, but that's the direction I'd go in. I guess there's another thing, too, about this team....it's lack of clutchness on both sides. Their pitching is great until it's crunch time and they must get a crucial out late in the game to win, just like their offense is incapable of scoring when it needs to...hell at this point it's incapable of scoring, period, but that lack of clutchness...a lot of times it's just random, but sometimes it just becomes the mark of the team. I can't help but think of the 2018 Red Sox. Other teams were like 0-30 against them with the bases loaded. They didn't give up grand slams. Their propensity to hit with 2 outs and runners on were daggers to the opponents. This team is its mirror opposite.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 10, 2022 9:30:52 GMT -5
No, it was a good take! They keep blowing saves because the offense stinks, meaning the bullpen has to be flawless to hold onto leads.
The Red Sox have 8 blown saves. Toronto has 6 and TB and NY both have 4. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 or 4 games where the bullpen pitched fine, like on Saturday - 1 run in 3 IP - but the offense did diddly squat in the late innings so that they had no margin for error whatsoever. A passable offense turns those games into wins (and saves), and the margin between the Red Sox and the other teams vanishes. The biggest problem with the bullpen, of course, has been Barnes. Just goes to show that shelling out big bucks for a Proven Closer is usually a really bad bet. (Robles' 2 blown saves, incidentally, is the same number as Liam Hendriks, though Robles has an ERA more than two runs lower. His ERA is also more than a run lower than Jansen's. But Jansen has had at least a two run lead in every single one of his save opportunities. He's basically been used as a low leverage reliever. That's one reason he doesn't have any blown saves.)
Disagree totally. Haha, yes I know. I've mostly said my piece about this and don't want to go around in circles, but just a couple points... Yes, that was a legitimately bad performance. They've had a few. I've never suggested the bullpen has been perfect; just that it's been adequate, that the real problem (as reflected in blown saves) is that the offense has been dreadful, and that a Proven Closer is not some magic bullet that would fix their problems.
One thing that's been happening in those extra inning games is that not only have the Red Sox failed to scored, they've failed to even move the zombie runner up. That's how bad their offense has been. Same thing essentially happened on Sunday in the 9th, when JDM had the leadoff double and then never made it to third. Incidentally, great job by the bullpen in that game, and preserving a 1-run deficit is really good, high-leverage performance, but by a quirk of record-keeping it isn't reflected in a stat like 'hold' or 'save.' (This is one of my basic complaints here - S, H, BS... these are just not good or informative statistics. They're like pitcher's wins or RBI - way too context-dependent to tell us anything meaningful.)
And then I think part of the issue with the extra inning blowups is that after the offense fails to score they end up going deep enough into the bullpen to have to use Barnes. (Again: one of many poster children for why spending big money on relievers is often a terrible idea.) I'm open to this possibility! I was hoping for a breakout with him in the starter's role this season - it always seems like it's just around the corner with him - but at this point maybe it's time to try something different. Of course they need Sale to stop getting injured every time he sneezes to be able to do it. Otherwise you're essentially back to subtracting depth from the bullpen by keeping all of Houck, Whitlock, Hill, and Wacha in the rotation (and Wacha's hurt now anyway...).
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,697
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 10, 2022 11:10:08 GMT -5
Haha, yes I know. I've mostly said my piece about this and don't want to go around in circles, but just a couple points... Yes, that was a legitimately bad performance. They've had a few. I've never suggested the bullpen has been perfect; just that it's been adequate, that the real problem (as reflected in blown saves) is that the offense has been dreadful, and that a Proven Closer is not some magic bullet that would fix their problems.
One thing that's been happening in those extra inning games is that not only have the Red Sox failed to scored, they've failed to even move the zombie runner up. That's how bad their offense has been. Same thing essentially happened on Sunday in the 9th, when JDM had the leadoff double and then never made it to third. Incidentally, great job by the bullpen in that game, and preserving a 1-run deficit is really good, high-leverage performance, but by a quirk of record-keeping it isn't reflected in a stat like 'hold' or 'save.' (This is one of my basic complaints here - S, H, BS... these are just not good or informative statistics. They're like pitcher's wins or RBI - way too context-dependent to tell us anything meaningful.)
And then I think part of the issue with the extra inning blowups is that after the offense fails to score they end up going deep enough into the bullpen to have to use Barnes. (Again: one of many poster children for why spending big money on relievers is often a terrible idea.) I'm open to this possibility! I was hoping for a breakout with him in the starter's role this season - it always seems like it's just around the corner with him - but at this point maybe it's time to try something different. Of course they need Sale to stop getting injured every time he sneezes to be able to do it. Otherwise you're essentially back to subtracting depth from the bullpen by keeping all of Houck, Whitlock, Hill, and Wacha in the rotation (and Wacha's hurt now anyway...). This article is illuminating: www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/whats-wrong-with-the-red-sox-three-reasons-for-bostons-dreadful-start-to-the-2022-season/"This is the most glaring problem with the Red Sox. The bullpen has been very unreliable, particularly in the late innings. Boston has five saves and nine blown saves, including five in the ninth inning. Hansel Robles and Jake Diekman combined to blow a ninth-inning lead last Wednesday, then Robles did it on his own Saturday. The Red Sox lost both games. Robles was their best high-leverage option despite the lack of a proper build up. Yikes. Here are some win probability numbers on Boston's bullpen: Win probability added: -1.10 (28th in MLB) Shutdowns: 28 (13th most in MLB) Meltdowns: 30 (most in MLB) Shutdowns are relief appearances that increase the team's win probability at least six percent. Meltdowns are the opposite. They are relief appearances that decrease the team's win probability at least six percent. The Red Sox are the only team in baseball with more meltdowns that shutdowns. Not even the terrible Reds have managed that. The bullpen woes have been exacerbated by Garrett Whitlock's move into the rotation. Whitlock was the Red Sox's best reliever last season and he started this year in the bullpen, but Boston is transitioning him into a starting role because they believe he has top-of-the-rotation upside. If the Red Sox believe that, they owe it to themselves to find out. Whitlock has allowed two earned runs in 12 innings in three starts while building up his pitch count. He's struck out 17 and looked excellent. The experiment is a success to date. The downside is manager Alex Cora no longer has that multi-inning high leverage dominator to unleash in close games, and it shows. Robles, Diekman and Matt Barnes keep lighting fires in the late innings. Barnes in particular has been a disappointment. He was an All-Star last season and the Red Sox signed him to a two-year, $18.75 million extension on July 11 to keep him from becoming a free agent. Since signing the extension, Barnes has a 7.00 ERA with a 1.93 K/BB and a 1.67 HR/9. He went from being truly elite early last year to borderline unrosterable." The other snippet that caught my attention was this: "According to ZiPS, the Blue Jays have a similar depth issue to the Red Sox, and it's entirely possible the difference between the two teams right now is Jordan Romano. Romano leads baseball with 12 saves and has been nails in the ninth inning, and is a big reason Toronto has 10 one-run wins. The Red Sox, as noted, are having major bullpen issues and are 3-7 in one-run games.
This is the build-a-pitcher era and it's fair to ask whether the Red Sox have the same pitching infrastructure as their AL East rivals. They don't have a seemingly endless supply of guys who throw 95 with wicked breaking balls like the Rays and Yankees. Could they turn Robbie Ray into a Cy Young winner, or get Kevin Gausman to level up, the way the Blue Jays did? I'm not sure. Boston's farm system is improved and it has had several young pitchers in the system make big gains in a short time (Brandon Walter, Josh Winckowski, etc.), which suggests it is catching up to its division rivals, if not caught up already. Those pitchers are not yet impacting the MLB roster, however, and the position player depth is lacking. It's getting exposed now." You keep defaulting to this, "The Sox must get an expensive/proven closer". Yes, they very well could have gone that route instead of signing Trevor Story, whose elbow is probably impacting his performance, or trading for JBJ's salary. Or they could do what Tampa does, which is to pluck a guy out of thin air and ride him. I mean, I was bashing Wacha left and right, and the guy has been nothing short of awesome. Chaim Bloom identified a useful starting pitcher for a reasonable amount of money, who could become a front line starter. Why can't he do the same for the bullpen? Why can't he find a guy for the bullpen that has the ingredients to be an effective closer? I mean, he kind of did with Strahm, but with the pen, you have to hit with more than one guy, and one of those has to be able to come into a game in the 9th inning with a 1 run lead and get the job done consistently. Hell, I remember how bad the 1987 Sox bullpen was and what a gift Lee Smith was for the 1988 Sox, and he was hardly dominant. He was merely good/effective, but was lightyears ahead of what they had and suddenly games that were winnable that had been dropping into the loss column were suddenly popping up as wins. I suspect with a reasonably good closer, the Sox would be near .500 now and not dead in the water as they appear to be right now. And I certainly remember the difference maker Tom Gordon was in 1998 in mentioning Pivetta. That is something that is on the Red Sox pitching coach, Cora, and Bloom - to best figure out how to utilize the guys they have on their roster. I mean you have 3 guys, Whitlock, Houck, Pivetta. Which should start? Which should close? I think the Sox do have it right with Whitlock. The guy could be the next ace of the staff. He's not a guy who should be pitching back-to-back days. The jury is still out on Houck. I think he deserves more of a chance to be a consistent starter, the chance Pivetta has gotten but really hasn't run with. That's another thing they must figure out.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on May 10, 2022 12:52:43 GMT -5
Haha, yes I know. I've mostly said my piece about this and don't want to go around in circles, but just a couple points... Yes, that was a legitimately bad performance. They've had a few. I've never suggested the bullpen has been perfect; just that it's been adequate, that the real problem (as reflected in blown saves) is that the offense has been dreadful, and that a Proven Closer is not some magic bullet that would fix their problems.
One thing that's been happening in those extra inning games is that not only have the Red Sox failed to scored, they've failed to even move the zombie runner up. That's how bad their offense has been. Same thing essentially happened on Sunday in the 9th, when JDM had the leadoff double and then never made it to third. Incidentally, great job by the bullpen in that game, and preserving a 1-run deficit is really good, high-leverage performance, but by a quirk of record-keeping it isn't reflected in a stat like 'hold' or 'save.' (This is one of my basic complaints here - S, H, BS... these are just not good or informative statistics. They're like pitcher's wins or RBI - way too context-dependent to tell us anything meaningful.)
And then I think part of the issue with the extra inning blowups is that after the offense fails to score they end up going deep enough into the bullpen to have to use Barnes. (Again: one of many poster children for why spending big money on relievers is often a terrible idea.) I'm open to this possibility! I was hoping for a breakout with him in the starter's role this season - it always seems like it's just around the corner with him - but at this point maybe it's time to try something different. Of course they need Sale to stop getting injured every time he sneezes to be able to do it. Otherwise you're essentially back to subtracting depth from the bullpen by keeping all of Houck, Whitlock, Hill, and Wacha in the rotation (and Wacha's hurt now anyway...). This article is illuminating: www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/whats-wrong-with-the-red-sox-three-reasons-for-bostons-dreadful-start-to-the-2022-season/"This is the most glaring problem with the Red Sox. The bullpen has been very unreliable, particularly in the late innings. Boston has five saves and nine blown saves, including five in the ninth inning. Hansel Robles and Jake Diekman combined to blow a ninth-inning lead last Wednesday, then Robles did it on his own Saturday. The Red Sox lost both games. Robles was their best high-leverage option despite the lack of a proper build up. Yikes. Here are some win probability numbers on Boston's bullpen: Win probability added: -1.10 (28th in MLB) Shutdowns: 28 (13th most in MLB) Meltdowns: 30 (most in MLB) Shutdowns are relief appearances that increase the team's win probability at least six percent. Meltdowns are the opposite. They are relief appearances that decrease the team's win probability at least six percent. The Red Sox are the only team in baseball with more meltdowns that shutdowns. Not even the terrible Reds have managed that. The bullpen woes have been exacerbated by Garrett Whitlock's move into the rotation. Whitlock was the Red Sox's best reliever last season and he started this year in the bullpen, but Boston is transitioning him into a starting role because they believe he has top-of-the-rotation upside. If the Red Sox believe that, they owe it to themselves to find out. Whitlock has allowed two earned runs in 12 innings in three starts while building up his pitch count. He's struck out 17 and looked excellent. The experiment is a success to date. The downside is manager Alex Cora no longer has that multi-inning high leverage dominator to unleash in close games, and it shows. Robles, Diekman and Matt Barnes keep lighting fires in the late innings. Barnes in particular has been a disappointment. He was an All-Star last season and the Red Sox signed him to a two-year, $18.75 million extension on July 11 to keep him from becoming a free agent. Since signing the extension, Barnes has a 7.00 ERA with a 1.93 K/BB and a 1.67 HR/9. He went from being truly elite early last year to borderline unrosterable." All well and good, but this doesn't really move us forward from our point of disagreement.
Like, here's a scenario: Red Sox have a 2-1 lead through 6; bullpen gives up 1 run in 3 IP; Red Sox lose when they fail to score the zombie runner and the other team does. (This was basically the Sawamura wild throw game.) That's a perfectly fine performance by the bullpen but it looks terrible by WPA. The offense is 100% to blame for that loss.
I do keep bringing up the question of signing an expensive closer because that was what was originally proposed. I am all for finding a diamond in the rough, but I don't know if any team has figured out a proof-positive way of doing that - if you could reliably predict which randos would suddenly turn into lockdown closers those guys would be expensive!
What I'll say additionally is this: if it's really that important to have a reliever whose specific job is pitching in the 9th inning with a one to three run lead, then they should sign and develop players who have a lot of potential in that specific regard. Then you could have a Romano type: a closer on the cheap. Of course, that has opportunity cost too: it means fewer draft picks on position players and potential starters, etc....
|
|
|
Post by joshuacoffee on May 10, 2022 16:00:06 GMT -5
What I'll say additionally is this: if it's really that important to have a reliever whose specific job is pitching in the 9th inning with a one to three run lead, then they should sign and develop players who have a lot of potential in that specific regard. Then you could have a Romano type: a closer on the cheap. Of course, that has opportunity cost too: it means fewer draft picks on position players and potential starters, etc.... I'm not sure they have specifically avoided drafting and developing pitchers with reliever profiles. I know they said they wanted him to be a starter, but nearly everyone thought that Tanner Houck looked like a reliever coming out of college. Also, they supposedly got a steal when they took Durbin Feltman. And let's not forget Darwinzon, who people mostly had a "more likely than not reliever" profile on as he neared the upper levels of the system. They've definitely had some high profile (at least here) prospects that were likely relievers, they just haven't had a lot succeed, like most teams. But for reliever prospects, your taking the least predictable role in baseball in the sport that probably has the least predictability for a prospect to succeed at a high level. That's tough. Of course, the lack of predictability for relievers in general is also why I think that spending big money on one is tough as well (see Barnes, Matt). A big short deal makes some sense, but only if you think you've got everything else figured out. This team clearly does not have everything else figured out. Yes, with a top level arm in the ninth this team is likely in the playoff hunt. Is being on the cusp of the playoffs worth the difference between going over the tax threshold a year early? I don't think so. But maybe someone else does. I'm ok with someone thinking that, I just disagree.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,697
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 10, 2022 18:46:46 GMT -5
What I'll say additionally is this: if it's really that important to have a reliever whose specific job is pitching in the 9th inning with a one to three run lead, then they should sign and develop players who have a lot of potential in that specific regard. Then you could have a Romano type: a closer on the cheap. Of course, that has opportunity cost too: it means fewer draft picks on position players and potential starters, etc.... I'm not sure they have specifically avoided drafting and developing pitchers with reliever profiles. I know they said they wanted him to be a starter, but nearly everyone thought that Tanner Houck looked like a reliever coming out of college. Also, they supposedly got a steal when they took Durbin Feltman. And let's not forget Darwinzon, who people mostly had a "more likely than not reliever" profile on as he neared the upper levels of the system. They've definitely had some high profile (at least here) prospects that were likely relievers, they just haven't had a lot succeed, like most teams. But for reliever prospects, your taking the least predictable role in baseball in the sport that probably has the least predictability for a prospect to succeed at a high level. That's tough. Of course, the lack of predictability for relievers in general is also why I think that spending big money on one is tough as well (see Barnes, Matt). A big short deal makes some sense, but only if you think you've got everything else figured out. This team clearly does not have everything else figured out. Yes, with a top level arm in the ninth this team is likely in the playoff hunt. Is being on the cusp of the playoffs worth the difference between going over the tax threshold a year early? I don't think so. But maybe someone else does. I'm ok with someone thinking that, I just disagree. Can't forget Craig Hansen.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on May 10, 2022 20:35:48 GMT -5
The offense vs. the bullpen is like the chicken vs. the egg. They both suck right now.
Yes the bullpen is under the spotlight more because they are almost put in leverage situations when we're in the lead, but even just looking at broad statistics they have the 8th worst bullpen ERA in baseball, 10th in terms of WHIP. So with a better offense we might win more games, but the bullpen would still be an issue.
We really almost have to look at these as issue 1a and 1b and not debate between a douche and a turd.
|
|
|
Post by joshuacoffee on May 11, 2022 7:09:05 GMT -5
Well, at least we have identified the real source of the Red Sox problems this season. It was Cora's beard all along.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by mobaz on May 11, 2022 7:29:20 GMT -5
Well, at least we have identified the real source of the Red Sox problems this season. It was Cora's beard all along. "Fear The Beard" has a much different meaning this season!
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jun 12, 2022 14:33:26 GMT -5
A lot of talk in the daily thread about closers and whether or not Chaim should've done something different this off-season, so I thought I would dig this thread back up so that the whole daily thread doesn't just become consumed with one topic.
But the MAIN reason I'm digging this thread back up is because I find that by looking at what the most obvious options were in the off-season, when it was created (see the poll), I think it's easy to see that there were precious few obvious closers who were available.
I stated a month or so ago that the clear right answer was Jansen and that appears to still be true. He has now converted 17 of 20 of his save opportunities -- can you imagine how happy we'd all be if our team save % was 85%?? (Actually, we'd prolly mostly be griping about the three he blew...) And given that the team got under the CBT last season, there's no argument to be made that a team like BOS cannot afford a top-of-the-market closer.
None of the other people named on this list is even close to what Jansen has been as a closer although the jury is still out on whether Whitlock will get a chance to out-perform him. Obviously, the starter experiment was necessary and pretty successful but with the IL stint halfway into the season (and with other options like Sale and Paxton in the wings), it may be better for Whit to return to the pen until next spring.
[No, I didn't include trading for Kimbrel in the poll for obvious reasons (he's 11/12 in saves for LAD) and not Robertson either, as he had thrown only 18.2 IP since 2018 (he's 7/9 in saves for CHC).]
Bottom line, there was really only one obvious closer available for Chaim to woo and that guy has performed as advertised, so you can either blame Chaim for not outbidding ATL for Jansen or not -- what you can't do is pretend that it would've been easy for him to just go out and "get a real closer."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 12, 2022 14:41:23 GMT -5
A lot of talk in the daily thread about closers and whether or not Chaim should've done something different this off-season, so I thought I would dig this thread back up so that the whole daily thread doesn't just become consumed with one topic. But the MAIN reason I'm digging this thread back up is because I find that by looking at what the most obvious options were in the off-season, when it was created (see the poll), I think it's easy to see that there were precious few obvious closers who were available. I stated a month or so ago that the clear right answer was Jansen and that appears to still be true. He has now converted 17 of 20 of his save opportunities -- can you imagine how happy we'd all be if our team save % was 85%?? (Actually, we'd prolly mostly be griping about the three he blew...) And given that the team got under the CBT last season, there's no argument to be made that a team like BOS cannot afford a top-of-the-market closer. None of the other people named on this list is even close to what Jansen has been as a closer although the jury is still out on whether Whitlock will get a chance to out-perform him. Obviously, the starter experiment was necessary and pretty successful but with the IL stint halfway into the season (and with other options like Sale and Paxton in the wings), it may be better for Whit to return to the pen until next spring. [No, I didn't include trading for Kimbrel in the poll for obvious reasons (he's 11/12 in saves for LAD) and not Robertson either, as he had thrown only 18.2 IP since 2018 (he's 7/9 in saves for CHC).] Bottom line, there was really only one obvious closer available for Chaim to woo and that guy has performed as advertised, so you can either blame Chaim for not outbidding ATL for Jansen or not -- what you can't do is pretend that it would've been easy for him to just go out and "get a real closer." Given that you could get 2 blown saves if a bullpen gives up 2 runs in 6 innings (which is quite good), it's not ever going to happen. And it really is the dumbest statistic ever invented in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 12, 2022 14:45:54 GMT -5
A lot of talk in the daily thread about closers and whether or not Chaim should've done something different this off-season, so I thought I would dig this thread back up so that the whole daily thread doesn't just become consumed with one topic. But the MAIN reason I'm digging this thread back up is because I find that by looking at what the most obvious options were in the off-season, when it was created (see the poll), I think it's easy to see that there were precious few obvious closers who were available. I stated a month or so ago that the clear right answer was Jansen and that appears to still be true. He has now converted 17 of 20 of his save opportunities -- can you imagine how happy we'd all be if our team save % was 85%?? (Actually, we'd prolly mostly be griping about the three he blew...) And given that the team got under the CBT last season, there's no argument to be made that a team like BOS cannot afford a top-of-the-market closer. None of the other people named on this list is even close to what Jansen has been as a closer although the jury is still out on whether Whitlock will get a chance to out-perform him. Obviously, the starter experiment was necessary and pretty successful but with the IL stint halfway into the season (and with other options like Sale and Paxton in the wings), it may be better for Whit to return to the pen until next spring. [No, I didn't include trading for Kimbrel in the poll for obvious reasons (he's 11/12 in saves for LAD) and not Robertson either, as he had thrown only 18.2 IP since 2018 (he's 7/9 in saves for CHC).] Bottom line, there was really only one obvious closer available for Chaim to woo and that guy has performed as advertised, so you can either blame Chaim for not outbidding ATL for Jansen or not -- what you can't do is pretend that it would've been easy for him to just go out and "get a real closer."Yep. And what's more, I think it's notable that Atlanta has 11 blown saves, almost as many as the Red Sox, even though Jansen only has 3.
I keep seeing this implication that's like "if only we had a Proven Closer we would have won all the games we lost in the 9th inning" or something, but it doesn't work like that. For one, even Proven Closers blow games. For another, they're not available in every game, or every decisive inning.
And of course I've made the point many times that teams have a terrible track record of determining in advance who the reliable closers are going to be - see Matt Barnes for instance! - so the argument "they should simply have gone out and gotten a guy who was sure to be a dominant closer" is just empty, as far as I'm concerned. Name names as to who they should have gotten, and what opportunity cost you'd be willing to pay (in terms of salary and/or prospects); otherwise you're just engaging in wishful thinking. E.g., in the case of Jansen, which other free agents would you have passed on to spend $16 million on him? Story? Paxton + Hill?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jun 12, 2022 15:36:31 GMT -5
Nine losses with Sox leading after the 8th this year. This has to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Jun 12, 2022 18:52:54 GMT -5
A lot of talk in the daily thread about closers and whether or not Chaim should've done something different this off-season, so I thought I would dig this thread back up so that the whole daily thread doesn't just become consumed with one topic. But the MAIN reason I'm digging this thread back up is because I find that by looking at what the most obvious options were in the off-season, when it was created (see the poll), I think it's easy to see that there were precious few obvious closers who were available. I stated a month or so ago that the clear right answer was Jansen and that appears to still be true. He has now converted 17 of 20 of his save opportunities -- can you imagine how happy we'd all be if our team save % was 85%?? (Actually, we'd prolly mostly be griping about the three he blew...) And given that the team got under the CBT last season, there's no argument to be made that a team like BOS cannot afford a top-of-the-market closer. None of the other people named on this list is even close to what Jansen has been as a closer although the jury is still out on whether Whitlock will get a chance to out-perform him. Obviously, the starter experiment was necessary and pretty successful but with the IL stint halfway into the season (and with other options like Sale and Paxton in the wings), it may be better for Whit to return to the pen until next spring. [No, I didn't include trading for Kimbrel in the poll for obvious reasons (he's 11/12 in saves for LAD) and not Robertson either, as he had thrown only 18.2 IP since 2018 (he's 7/9 in saves for CHC).] Bottom line, there was really only one obvious closer available for Chaim to woo and that guy has performed as advertised, so you can either blame Chaim for not outbidding ATL for Jansen or not -- what you can't do is pretend that it would've been easy for him to just go out and "get a real closer."Yep. And what's more, I think it's notable that Atlanta has 11 blown saves, almost as many as the Red Sox, even though Jansen only has 3.
I keep seeing this implication that's like "if only we had a Proven Closer we would have won all the games we lost in the 9th inning" or something, but it doesn't work like that. For one, even Proven Closers blow games. For another, they're not available in every game, or every decisive inning.
And of course I've made the point many times that teams have a terrible track record of determining in advance who the reliable closers are going to be - see Matt Barnes for instance! - so the argument "they should simply have gone out and gotten a guy who was sure to be a dominant closer" is just empty, as far as I'm concerned. Name names as to who they should have gotten, and what opportunity cost you'd be willing to pay (in terms of salary and/or prospects); otherwise you're just engaging in wishful thinking. E.g., in the case of Jansen, which other free agents would you have passed on to spend $16 million on him? Story? Paxton + Hill?
None. They have no penalties other than tax money. If you're telling me that the owners would not allow Chaim to sign a closer like Jensen that he wanted to a contract that would not run past the window of tax-only surplus spending because they don't want to spend the money, then we have a much bigger problem.
|
|
|