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 rjp313jr on Apr 9, 2014 10:37:12 GMT -5
Workman just threw 4 innings and has pitched a decent amount so he's probably unavailable for at least a few days. Let's see how long he's down for before reacting too much to this news.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 9, 2014 10:55:12 GMT -5
I don't want to get off on a tangent with this and won't respond regardless of the response, but I am curious why someone who doesn't believe in someone being able to be a "clutch" performer or the assertion that players can't either rise to the occasion in the playoffs or crumble under it's pressure would feel there is a difference between performing in low leverage vs high leverage situations. I'm fairly certain, you've had many comments about these guys don't react to pressure because they've been under pressure their entire lives just to get to the majors. To keep it relevant maybe we can just respond with regards to how this would apply to Workman or not. Because opposing hitters perform differently (most notably, they work fewer counts and swing earlier in at-bats) in lower-leverage situations. Hitters collectively hit .250/.313/.393/.706 in low-leverage situations, compared to .253/.324/.387/.712 in high-leverage situations and .257/.320/.405/.725 in medium-leverage situations. Now, there are some confounding effects here, but they only prove my point more-- even though you'd expect the best pitchers to pitch the highest-leverage innings and the worst pitchers to pitch the lowest-leverage innings, hitters perform worse in low-leverage situations than in high-leverage situations (mostly because they take fewer walks). It's because hitters really do mail in at-bats during blowouts, and so you can't evaluate a reliever who only pitches in low-leverage situations the same way as someone who pitches exclusively in high-leverage situations. None of this contradicts the idea that clutch is almost never a sustainable skill.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 9, 2014 11:19:48 GMT -5
Sent down to Triple A and the guy has been a pretty darn good major leaguer. By the sounds of his comments, I sense some frustration...and deservedly so. Isn't there a spot on the big club for a guy who has shown his ability and are 3 lefties really needed in your bullpen? Options....understood...but backlogs hindering player development isn't effective. It's frustrating to have some success in the majors but still be sent down, but this is frankly the best long-term career move for him. Even mediocre back-end starters earn way more in arbitration and free agency than good relievers. Also: low-leverage innings are meaningfully different from higher-leverage ones. Three good innings in a blowout is nice, but I'm still pretty confident that he's not one of the five best starters on the team, and even if you think he is, there's enough of a margin for error that you want the one with options to be the odd man out. Last night, Doubront cruised through the first two innings, and then next thing you know he gives up a home run on a pretty well-located pitch (the hitter got on one knee and Beltre'd it) and a few BABIP hits (the Fielder ground-ball double over Napoli's head, the pitch Sizemore froze on) and it all comes apart (the bases-loaded walk, etc). Don't overreact to one start. Respectfully, if he is not one of the five best starters on the team, then why send him down to "stretch" him out. I also don't think you can judge the leverge in which he appears, that is JF's choice....and we may have a better record if he had used Workman differently. I just feel frustrated for him, he's done a heckuva job going back to last year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 9, 2014 11:25:23 GMT -5
Well, he's probably the sixth best starter in the team, and that's arguably more valuable than being the fifth or sixth best reliever on the team, especially with injury-prone guys like Buchholz and Peavy in the rotation. The point about leverage is to note that we can't just assume that he'd perform as well in higher-leverage situations as he did last night.
I agree that he's probably quite frustrated, and he has a right to be, but he'll get his time to shine in the big leagues.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 9, 2014 12:24:21 GMT -5
This is overblown in my opinion. Workman is not clearly better than Doubront, Buchholz, or Peavy. His track record isn't as strong as Mujica's track record. He's not better than Uehara, Tazawa, or Breslow. He's comparable to Andrew Miller and Chris Capuano who both have different functions and he's comparable to Badenhop who would have a similar function to what Workman is doing now.
So given that I would rather have depth. There will be injuries and he will be back and he'll yo-yo between Pawtucket and Boston until he clearly establishes himself as better than what they have now. Workman will get his chance.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 9, 2014 12:33:48 GMT -5
None of this contradicts the idea that clutch is almost never a sustainable skill. Is there any evidence that, while clutch is non-statistical, choking exists? It's always been my belief that what we should call clutch is simply the ability to avoid being worse than normal (choking) in crucial situations.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 9, 2014 13:06:46 GMT -5
Well, he's probably the sixth best starter in the team, and that's arguably more valuable than being the fifth or sixth best reliever on the team, especially with injury-prone guys like Buchholz and Peavy in the rotation. The point about leverage is to note that we can't just assume that he'd perform as well in higher-leverage situations as he did last night. I agree that he's probably quite frustrated, and he has a right to be, but he'll get his time to shine in the big leagues. But what if he's the 3rd best reliever on the team?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 9, 2014 13:07:50 GMT -5
None of this contradicts the idea that clutch is almost never a sustainable skill. Is there any evidence that, while clutch is non-statistical, choking exists? It's always been my belief that what we should call clutch is simply the ability to avoid being worse than normal (choking) in crucial situations. Clutch is simply being better than worse pitchers in higher leverage situations. In other words, a better pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 9, 2014 13:13:46 GMT -5
Well, he's probably the sixth best starter in the team, and that's arguably more valuable than being the fifth or sixth best reliever on the team, especially with injury-prone guys like Buchholz and Peavy in the rotation. The point about leverage is to note that we can't just assume that he'd perform as well in higher-leverage situations as he did last night. I agree that he's probably quite frustrated, and he has a right to be, but he'll get his time to shine in the big leagues. But what if he's the 3rd best reliever on the team? He's not, but even if you think he is, the difference between him and guys like Mujica or Badenhop is close enough that you keep the out-of-options guys in the majors and option him down.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 9, 2014 13:38:53 GMT -5
Guys, this is pitching. There are ALWAYS injuries to the pitching staff, constantly. Workman will be back this year, he will start games for the Red Sox, and if he was dispassionate about it (ie, not a competitor), he'd be fine with being sent down. But, then, he probably wouldn't be a good pitcher if he could be dispassionate about stuff like this, so there ya go.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 9, 2014 14:52:42 GMT -5
Discussion question: If Breslow had been ready for opening day, and Workman had begun the season as the number one starter in Pawtucket (which had been our projection here), would you feel the same way that you do about this transaction now? If you wouldn't have, has enough happened in one week to really justify changing the plan? And let's be clear, this was always the plan - there was no discussion before last night's game about how to make room on the roster for Breslow.
Also, if I can just make a point that seems to run contrary to what's being discussed, his first two appearances were definitely high leverage. Last night was his only mop-up duty.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 9, 2014 15:20:49 GMT -5
Discussion question: If Breslow had been ready for opening day, and Workman had begun the season as the number one starter in Pawtucket (which had been our projection here), would you feel the same way that you do about this transaction now? If you wouldn't have, has enough happened in one week to really justify changing the plan? And let's be clear, this was always the plan - there was no discussion before last night's game about how to make room on the roster for Breslow. Also, if I can just make a point that seems to run contrary to what's being discussed, his first two appearances were definitely high leverage. Last night was his only mop-up duty. I was always of the opinion that Workman is better off in the majors, which is why I was so against the Capuano signing.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 9, 2014 16:35:14 GMT -5
Discussion question: If Breslow had been ready for opening day, and Workman had begun the season as the number one starter in Pawtucket (which had been our projection here), would you feel the same way that you do about this transaction now? If you wouldn't have, has enough happened in one week to really justify changing the plan? And let's be clear, this was always the plan - there was no discussion before last night's game about how to make room on the roster for Breslow. Also, if I can just make a point that seems to run contrary to what's being discussed, his first two appearances were definitely high leverage. Last night was his only mop-up duty. Is Breslow even needed at this point? There are 3 lefties in the bullpen..is that needed? Let me ask another discussion question - what would be the purpose of Workman starting the year as the PawSox #1? Is it to get him ramped up to 150 - 180 innings this year so he will have a shot to start in the rotation next year, or this year in event of injury? Is it to have him available for spot starts along the way? That would probably make a little more sense...but you may have weakened your bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 9, 2014 16:42:02 GMT -5
Is Breslow even needed at this point? There are 3 lefties in the bullpen..is that needed? One of these questions is a very reasonable one and the other is the complete opposite.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 9, 2014 16:48:45 GMT -5
Also, if I can just make a point that seems to run contrary to what's being discussed, his first two appearances were definitely high leverage. Last night was his only mop-up duty. Good point. I was more reacting to the fact that his 3 IP stint last night (which represent half of his inning total this year) was lower leverage, but Farrell has definitely been using him in higher-leverage situations as well. Let me ask another discussion question - what would be the purpose of Workman starting the year as the PawSox #1? Is it to get him ramped up to 150 - 180 innings this year so he will have a shot to start in the rotation next year, or this year in event of injury? Is it to have him available for spot starts along the way? That would probably make a little more sense...but you may have weakened your bullpen. Yes, the point of sending Workman back to Pawtucket is to stretch him out and give him a chance to make spot starts or injury-fill-in starts for the big league club this year. Maybe it weakens your bullpen, but not by a lot because the difference between Workman and Breslow is not that great, especially when you consider that relievers only throw 60 innings a year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 9, 2014 17:01:50 GMT -5
I was always of the opinion that Workman is better off in the majors, which is why I was so against the Capuano signing. Here's the thing: if Workman spends another month or so in the bullpen, he probably can't get stretched out enough to make real spot starts this year. Sending him down now to get stretched back out seems ideal, since the sixth starter on most teams gets as many innings pitched as the average reliever. Here are the IP totals of the starting pitcher who had the sixth most starts for Boston in the last few years: 2013: Peavy, 64.2 IP 2012: Daisuke, 45.2 IP 2011: Miller, 65 IP 2010: Wakefield, 140 IP 2009: Daisuke, 59.1 IP I mean, it's not like we're banishing him to Siberia. Workman is going to be back in the majors this season, and he's almost certainly going to get a pretty substantial number of innings for Boston as long as he remains the 6th guy on the SP depth chart. Plus, if Workman did spend all of 2014 in the Boston bullpen, he'd probably become a bullpen-only guy going forward, since it'd be tough to get him the inning totals he'd need to be a full-time SP in 2015 and beyond. If you think Workman is a great pitcher, this is a move you should be applauding, since great pitchers are more valuable in the rotation than in the bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 9, 2014 17:42:29 GMT -5
Here's the thing: if Workman spends another month or so in the bullpen, he probably can't get stretched out enough to make real spot starts this year. Sending him down now to get stretched back out seems ideal, since the sixth starter on most teams gets as many innings pitched as the average reliever. Here are the IP totals of the starting pitcher who had the sixth most starts for Boston in the last few years: 2013: Peavy, 64.2 IP 2012: Daisuke, 45.2 IP 2011: Miller, 65 IP 2010: Wakefield, 140 IP 2009: Daisuke, 59.1 IP I mean, it's not like we're banishing him to Siberia. Workman is going to be back in the majors this season, and he's almost certainly going to get a pretty substantial number of innings for Boston as long as he remains the 6th guy on the SP depth chart. Plus, if Workman did spend all of 2014 in the Boston bullpen, he'd probably become a bullpen-only guy going forward, since it'd be tough to get him the inning totals he'd need to be a full-time SP in 2015 and beyond. If you think Workman is a great pitcher, this is a move you should be applauding, since great pitchers are more valuable in the rotation than in the bullpen. I actually agree with you, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. The Red Sox do have reasonably good starting pitcher depth. Behind Workman, they have Webster, De La Rosa, Ranaudo, and eventually Barnes and Wright. The organizational depth isn't so thin that the Red Sox should feel that they need to have Workman stretched out. If he is currently better than the options on the major league roster, there's an argument for using him. I'm also skeptical that spending all of 2014 in the bullpen would doom Workman to a future exclusively in the bullpen. Several pitchers have transitioned successfully to the rotation in the past few seasons after breaking in as rookies in the bullpen. That said, I don't think Workman is a finished product, so I think the time at Triple-A will do him good. Also, I don't know that Workman is better than Capuano anyhow - it's close enough that it's not worth just cutting Capuano and cutting into the depth to make that choice.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 9, 2014 18:06:45 GMT -5
I do think Workman is a better depth option than the other guys in the organization, both in terms of present skill and in terms of allowing Webster/De La Rosa/Ranaudo the development time they need at Pawtucket. Even if he's not that much better than the other guys, he still deepens the depth chart and ensures that even if there are multiple simultaneous injuries, they won't have to pull up a guy who is obviously not ready (e.g., Ranaudo, considering how bad his first two starts were) or a guy who is just not very good (Wright or Kehrt or Hernandez).
I know that other RP -> SP transitions have occurred successfully, and maybe the book wouldn't be totally closed on Workman as a starter. But at the very least, it'd make it more difficult for him to transition back in 2015 and mean that he wouldn't be able to throw a full season's worth of starter's innings that year. Also, the starting depth behind him would make it unlikely that he ever transitions back to a starter, as the Red Sox would have other options (Webster, De La Rosa, Ranaudo, Barnes) to fill any SP openings that exist. Practically speaking, if he has a successful year in relief in 2014 and at least a few of those other starters do well, I just can't see the organization converting him back. Masterson, for instance, almost certainly would have stayed a RP had he not been traded.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 9, 2014 18:09:57 GMT -5
Tongue-in-cheek: the optimal thing is of course to have Workman play middle relief until his first arbitration hearing, then convert him to a starter. The arbitrators will never notice! Also, jmei is showing his anti-knuckleballer prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by curiousle on Apr 9, 2014 18:32:25 GMT -5
Organizational depth in starting pitching is a major plus for any organization. The Red Sox are playing this right-Workman's future is not yet decided, he should be a regular at the major league level, the only question is whether that is as reliever or starter. Personally I like him as a starter, yes he's a fly ball pitcher, but I like how he attacks the zone. With Doubront, you have to wait, yes he's been inconsistent, but his stuff is real and let's be frank his inconsistency is most likely tied to his immaturity(conditioning, preparation) which he's been critiqued on before. He's come to camp in much better shape and committed himself to that, let's revisit when he's had 8 to 10 starts and see where things are, but I don't think you can give up on yet.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Apr 9, 2014 19:05:39 GMT -5
"Excess pitching" is always temporary. I would be surprised if Workman does not start at least 12 games for Boston in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 9, 2014 20:51:53 GMT -5
I don't see why Workman couldn't pitch a full workload next year, as a starter, if he spent this year in the pen. He's throw around 135 innings for a few years now and he's physically mature so there's no reason to think he couldn't throw 180+ innings even if he dropped down to 80-100 IP this year from the bullpen.
I have no issues with him going down depends Jaliyah since I think he'd be available for a few days.
|
|
|
Post by njsox on Apr 13, 2014 12:13:54 GMT -5
With the k/bb ratios that Workman continues to put up we would be crazy not to give him an opportunity to be a full time starter. www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/strikeouts_per_base_on_balls_career.shtmlCheck out the link and tell me which starter on that list that you wouldn't have wanted on your team, especially homegrown and cost controlled. I'm all for getting this guy ready to be a key member of the rotation starting next year.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Apr 13, 2014 14:01:15 GMT -5
I've been watching Buhholz throw and it looks to me like he has a giddy-up in his shoulder. If he does, then it is only a matter of time before he goes on the DL.
Hopefully it is just an early season mechanical issue to be worked out and all is well.
If not, then it might be best to stretch out Workman at Pawtucket now.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 18, 2014 17:25:52 GMT -5
So, can we safely say that Workman is a back-of-the-rotation starter now? Does anyone feel he has more potential than that? Because honestly at this point I would rather see some pitchers with more upside (Wright, Webster) in Boston, and if they pan out I would strongly consider trading Workman this offseason. He should fetch a decent return as a cost-controlled starter... and by the time he hits free agency I fear velocity decline will push him to the pen.
|
|
|