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.
Starting pitching depth entering season
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 14:30:15 GMT -5
Ha, I don't...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 10, 2015 14:59:07 GMT -5
Just read your longer post. Why ignore the comparison within the division? Doesn't someone need to win the division? Why ignore the teams the Red Sox are playing nearly half of their games against and competing exclusively with for one playoff spot, when your argument is one that really only matters in the regular season?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Mar 10, 2015 15:05:07 GMT -5
I think we all owe Marcus Stroman an apology for jinxing him... ugh. I take back what I said about the Blue Jays. I really hate seeing these injuries is young high potential arms, even when they are direct competitors. I mean I don't wish injuries on any player, but at least if Kershaw gets hurt he would have a couple hundred million other reasons to be happy. With the rising injuries to pitchers, I think the value is adding depth instead of "top end" talent. Really we have at least 5 pitchers in AAA that would be deserving of a spot start in the Majors, and 2-3 who project to be "ready" towards the start of the year. We also have Ross and Workman who maybe relievers on the MLB team that could take a turn in the rotation without a roster move. Although we lack the top end options, I still love the depth the Red Sox built, for both SP and position players
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Mar 10, 2015 15:05:51 GMT -5
You're really over-thinking this, rjp... Ummmm yea Norm that's what we do here. Can't remember who said it first: You can never have too much bitching!
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 15:12:51 GMT -5
Just read your longer post. Why ignore the comparison within the division? Doesn't someone need to win the division? Why ignore the teams the Red Sox are playing nearly half of their games against and competing exclusively with for one playoff spot, when your argument is one that really only matters in the regular season? I wasn't ignoring the teams. I think the Orioles are in the same boat as the Sox so it's even and I'm probably haopier with the Sox depth. But I also Prefer the Orioles 2015 upside. Tampa and NYY aren't real contenders in my eyes and I told you my issues with Toronto. I didn't look at them as a true contender. I see the division as a likely two horse race. Boston and Baltimore.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 15:14:03 GMT -5
Ummmm yea Norm that's what we do here. Can't remember who said it first: You can never have too much bitching! Raising a concern is not bitching.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 10, 2015 17:48:20 GMT -5
The second quote is completely different than what you're questioning. That has to do with the spotty health of 3 of the 5 starters. The entire philosophy behind the Sox rotation or success of it is having number 3 type starters in spots 1-5. Common sense tells you if you lose any of them and have a drop off in those spots that advantage goes away. If another team loses it's Ace then yea sure that team is more screwed than if the sox lose any of their other starters. However, if that other team loses any of the other pitchers in the rotation (80%) probability) then the other team having that Ace or Aces (since a lot of these teams have multiple top of the rotation guys) more than out weighs things. I only care about real contenders for obvious reasons. We can agree to disagree but I put a higher weighted importance on the pitchers who I consider top of the rotation types. I think you're misunderstanding the strategy in building a deeper rotation ... or conflating two different issues somehow. First, let's look at the way the Sox constructed their team. I don't think there's anyone who would disagree that the Sox would be better with an ace. A better pitcher is a better pitcher! The depth isn't a strength in the same way that, say, speed is a strength for Billy Hamilton, something that's inherently more productive than a less equal distribution of wins. The Sox went for depth as the most efficient way to accumulate WAR in the five slots available after Lester turned them down. The difference between having a fifth starter that's +2 WAR over another fifth starter at replacement level is the same as having a #1 that's +2 WAR over a lesser #1, but it's a lot cheaper to acquire (in talent or dollars). So the Sox, faced with a rotation that just flat out wasn't good enough, went this route to trying to accumulate wins. That doesn't mean the depth is an advantage that can be lost in the way you put it; it's just the Sox's strategy for the most efficient method of accumulating wins in the offseason. So, once we get into the seasons, losing a pitcher is just losing that particular pitcher, not losing some amorphous strength of "depth." Then you have to look at what is lost when that player stops performing versus what the replacement is. Which is where another function of depth comes in. This kind of depth (quality back-ups) is only potential value at the start of the season; it's only value that comes into play when someone gets hurt. This is where jmei's and my point come in about the chances of losing your #1/2 vs 4/5 come in. I'll just point you back to jmei's formula, but more simply, imagine one rotation's WAR is distributed 5/4/3/2/1 and another's is 3/3/3/3/3. Those are equal rotations. Now, if you randomly take a player out of each, the odds are equally weighted on which will lose more (40% the first, 40% the second, 20% equal). Then it's about which replacement pitcher is better ... the quality of the back-ups. Which is the same issue no matter how the rotation is constructed. All that said, I worry about the rotation because of Masterson. I just don't like his risk/reward profile at all.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 10, 2015 20:58:09 GMT -5
Yea, I fully understand the differences in depths. I've talked about it. 1-2-3-4-5 vs 3-3-3-3-3 isn't how rotations are built. The problem is using terms like a 1 or a 3 and I started it so I apologize.
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Mar 11, 2015 9:49:59 GMT -5
Can't remember who said it first: You can never have too much bitching! Raising a concern is not bitching. Yah, but when you have a good line you have to use it ASAP. :-)
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Mar 11, 2015 15:07:07 GMT -5
So, RJP; is your concern more with the lack of front end talent in the rotation, or do you have a genuine concern with lack of quality depth?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 11, 2015 16:50:21 GMT -5
I'm concerned with the front end, sure. I'm more concerned with the likelihood that multiple of our 5 regulars need replacements. Obviously a good front end would help mitigate the risk of losing those guys.
I like the guys in AAA, but I'm concerned if we need them early because I believe more seasoning is required for them. Maybe not required but useful. I also don't believe in Wright or Workman as a starters.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Mar 11, 2015 17:54:19 GMT -5
How could not believe in Wright?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 11, 2015 20:04:08 GMT -5
Wright is currently the 6th starter and a guy you can be fairly confident can step in if needed, and not suck. As the season progresses, he hopefully becomes more of an insurance against a rash of injuries. (I still love him as a long man and spot starter on the MLB roster, though, where I think he'd be much more useful than yet another RH setup guy.)
Barnes may well have already moved past him, but not by so much that it would likely make a difference over a handful of starts. You might be better off in the long run, if there's a ST or early-season injury, with just letting Wright do his job while keeping Barnes in AAA where he can work on what he still needs to work on.
By mid-season, things are very different. In Johnson you've likely added another guy who can hold his own if you're crippled by multiple injuries. But much more importantly, between Owens, Rodriguez, and Barnes, you have some tangible chance of having someone so good that you'll want to make room for them in the rotation, even if everyone is healthy.
There's a pretty good chance that by mid-season you have 8 or 9 MLB-caliber starters, pretty much covering even the worst of injury situations. And there's a solid chance that the five best of them will be even better than what you've got now.
Really, unless they have three simultaneous injuries before, say, mid/late-June, I think there's nothing to worry about. But that's probably true of most teams anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 11, 2015 21:15:36 GMT -5
I'm concerned with the front end, sure. I'm more concerned with the likelihood that multiple of our 5 regulars need replacements. Obviously a good front end would help mitigate the risk of losing those guys. So what you're saying is if we had Stroman then Barnes would suddenly be closer in talent to Masterson. Yeah that totally makes sense... not. Anyway, if I had to bet on one player to outperform his Steamer projection I would choose Steven Wright. Accordingly, I'm not worried at all.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 12, 2015 8:32:06 GMT -5
I'm concerned with the front end, sure. I'm more concerned with the likelihood that multiple of our 5 regulars need replacements. Obviously a good front end would help mitigate the risk of losing those guys. So what you're saying is if we had Stroman then Barnes would suddenly be closer in talent to Masterson. Yeah that totally makes sense... not. Anyway, if I had to bet on one player to outperform his Steamer projection I would choose Steven Wright. Accordingly, I'm not worried at all. Yea that's not what I'm saying at all so don't be an arrogant jerk. You obviously think depth is equally important to all teams regardless of how they are built. Some teams are more reliant on their depth some are more reliant on their top end talent. I'm not saying one is better than the other. The Sox are more reliant on their depth, an issue compounded by the fact that Buchholz, Kelly and Masterson can't be confidently relied upon to each make even 25ish starts. So yea, I'm concerned, if we are to ask one or more of the AAA guys to step in for a stretch during April or May. I'm also not complaining nor am I worried. I simply pointed out a concern because it's Spring training and we are here to dissect this team and what could legitimately be a weakness, etc. People can't handle that though.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 12, 2015 8:37:12 GMT -5
Wright is currently the 6th starter and a guy you can be fairly confident can step in if needed, and not suck. As the season progresses, he hopefully becomes more of an insurance against a rash of injuries. (I still love him as a long man and spot starter on the MLB roster, though, where I think he'd be much more useful than yet another RH setup guy.) Barnes may well have already moved past him, but not by so much that it would likely make a difference over a handful of starts. You might be better off in the long run, if there's a ST or early-season injury, with just letting Wright do his job while keeping Barnes in AAA where he can work on what he still needs to work on. By mid-season, things are very different. In Johnson you've likely added another guy who can hold his own if you're crippled by multiple injuries. But much more importantly, between Owens, Rodriguez, and Barnes, you have some tangible chance of having someone so good that you'll want to make room for them in the rotation, even if everyone is healthy. There's a pretty good chance that by mid-season you have 8 or 9 MLB-caliber starters, pretty much covering even the worst of injury situations. And there's a solid chance that the five best of them will be even better than what you've got now. Really, unless they have three simultaneous injuries before, say, mid/late-June, I think there's nothing to worry about. But that's probably true of most teams anyway. I pretty much agree with all this and have pretty much said all this throughout my posts, but have less confidence in Wright. However, if we've learned anything it's that prospects are a crapshoot so while I think it's possible those guy can be so good they force their way in, it's also almost equally as possible that they step in and struggle. They will be needed and the final success of this team may by and large depend on them.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Mar 12, 2015 8:44:02 GMT -5
So what you're saying is if we had Stroman then Barnes would suddenly be closer in talent to Masterson. Yeah that totally makes sense... not. Yea that's not what I'm saying at all so don't be an arrogant jerk. You obviously think depth is equally important to all teams regardless of how they are built. Some teams are more reliant on their depth some are more reliant on their top end talent. I'm not saying one is better than the other. The Sox are more reliant on their depth, an issue compounded by the fact that Buchholz, Kelly and Masterson can't be confidently relied upon to each make even 25ish starts. So yea, I'm concerned, if we are to ask one or more of the AAA guys to step in for a stretch during April or May. Then explain to me how the Blue Jays can rely on their top end talent (Stroman) instead of relying on their depth. How does having Stroman help them when Stroman gets injured?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 12, 2015 8:51:23 GMT -5
Yea that's not what I'm saying at all so don't be an arrogant jerk. You obviously think depth is equally important to all teams regardless of how they are built. Some teams are more reliant on their depth some are more reliant on their top end talent. I'm not saying one is better than the other. The Sox are more reliant on their depth, an issue compounded by the fact that Buchholz, Kelly and Masterson can't be confidently relied upon to each make even 25ish starts. So yea, I'm concerned, if we are to ask one or more of the AAA guys to step in for a stretch during April or May. Then explain to me how the Blue Jays can rely on their top end talent (Stroman) instead of relying on their depth. How does having Stroman help them when Stroman gets injured? Why is everything an absolute with you? Did I ever say they rely upon it more than every other team without exceptions? The answer is no. I also expressed explicitly stated it's obviously different if a team loses their Ace and I said I only cared about contenders anyways and rose all those down team by team. The Jays weren't a contender in my eyes and the main reason was injuries so Stroman getting hurt just justified my thoughts there. What were scouts and front office people most concerned about with him? His size and slight frame nit breaking down. Not that I expected him specifically to break down, I'll leave that to the rest of the rotation and the fragile bats they have.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 12, 2015 9:02:44 GMT -5
Wright is currently the 6th starter and a guy you can be fairly confident can step in if needed, and not suck. As the season progresses, he hopefully becomes more of an insurance against a rash of injuries. (I still love him as a long man and spot starter on the MLB roster, though, where I think he'd be much more useful than yet another RH setup guy.) Barnes may well have already moved past him, but not by so much that it would likely make a difference over a handful of starts. You might be better off in the long run, if there's a ST or early-season injury, with just letting Wright do his job while keeping Barnes in AAA where he can work on what he still needs to work on. By mid-season, things are very different. In Johnson you've likely added another guy who can hold his own if you're crippled by multiple injuries. But much more importantly, between Owens, Rodriguez, and Barnes, you have some tangible chance of having someone so good that you'll want to make room for them in the rotation, even if everyone is healthy. There's a pretty good chance that by mid-season you have 8 or 9 MLB-caliber starters, pretty much covering even the worst of injury situations. And there's a solid chance that the five best of them will be even better than what you've got now. Really, unless they have three simultaneous injuries before, say, mid/late-June, I think there's nothing to worry about. But that's probably true of most teams anyway. I pretty much agree with all this and have pretty much said all this throughout my posts, but have less confidence in Wright. However, if we've learned anything it's that prospects are a crapshoot so while I think it's possible those guy can be so good they force their way in, it's also almost equally as possible that they step in and struggle. They will be needed and the final success of this team may by and large depend on them. I still have a hard time understanding this. I think you're basically more upset that the top of the rotation isn't stronger than you are complaining about the lack of depth. I'd guess that literally every team depends on depth and I still don't know how you could build this team with more or higher quality depth than they have right now. Yeah, prospects struggle, but so do veteran minor league free agents. There's a lot more upside with the prospects though. You could come up with "what if" scenarios for every team in the league that make the season look bleak. No team can prepare for everything. The Red Sox are a lot more prepared than most teams. Plus the lineup should be able to carry the team to the playoffs without the best pitching in the league.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Mar 12, 2015 9:14:28 GMT -5
So, it certainly feels like you are saying one thing and meaning something else. I think people are jumping on you because the specifics of what you are saying just don't seem accurate, even though the overriding point you are making may be.
I think it is certainly fair to say the Red Sox may be more reliant on their depth beyond their five starters. Buchholz always misses time, Kelly hasn't racked up a lot of innings, Masterson is coming off an injury-plagued and under-performing season. Now I would argue that is offset quite a bit by the fact that Porcello and Miley have been relative work horses, but it is fair to say that the risk profile of the first five makes the Red Sox more dependent on depth.
That is very different than saying that because the Red Sox have a collection of mid-rotation starters they therefor are more reliant on depth. That just doesn't make sense. If all five of their #3s were Wade Miley, they would likely be significantly LESS reliant on depth.
The reliance on depth is a factor of the expected missed time of the first five starters.
Now the drop off is only relevant if distribution of expected missed time is skewed towards the back end of the rotation or if the quality of the rotation on average is different. So like others have mentioned, a 1-2-3-4-5 rotation with equal injury probability and a 3-3-3-3-3 with equal injury probability will (ON AVERAGE!) be equally dependent on depth and equally effected by having to use that depth.
So the point is - the distribution of the rotation doesn't matter. What matters on a high level is the overall quality of the rotation and the overall odds of missing time. Or more specifically, the quality of each pitcher times the odds they are hurt.
That is different than what you were saying.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 12, 2015 12:24:15 GMT -5
Then explain to me how the Blue Jays can rely on their top end talent (Stroman) instead of relying on their depth. How does having Stroman help them when Stroman gets injured? Why is everything an absolute with you? Did I ever say they rely upon it more than every other team without exceptions? The answer is no. I also expressed explicitly stated it's obviously different if a team loses their Ace and I said I only cared about contenders anyways and rose all those down team by team. The Jays weren't a contender in my eyes and the main reason was injuries so Stroman getting hurt just justified my thoughts there. What were scouts and front office people most concerned about with him? His size and slight frame nit breaking down. Not that I expected him specifically to break down, I'll leave that to the rest of the rotation and the fragile bats they have. Stroman tore his ACL during a bunt fielding drill-- it had nothing to do with his size or slight frame. It was a freak accident that could have happened to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 12, 2015 12:25:18 GMT -5
Marcus Stroman is like 5'7", 200 pounds.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 12, 2015 12:38:14 GMT -5
You obviously think depth is equally important to all teams regardless of how they are built. Some teams are more reliant on their depth some are more reliant on their top end talent. I'm not saying one is better than the other. The Sox are more reliant on their depth, an issue compounded by the fact that Buchholz, Kelly and Masterson can't be confidently relied upon to each make even 25ish starts. So yea, I'm concerned, if we are to ask one or more of the AAA guys to step in for a stretch during April or May. To follow up on chavo's post above, I think you're conflating two definitions of depth. When folks praise the current Red Sox rotation's depth, they're not really talking about how great the 6th or 7th or 8th starters are. They're talking about how the current back-of-the-rotation starters (Masterson and Kelly) are better than most teams' back-of-the-rotation starters. For instance, Masterson and Kelly are (arguably) better than, say, Alfredo Simon and Shane Greene (Tigers) or J.A. Happ and Roenis Elias (Mariners) or Eovaldi and Capuano (Yankees) or Noesi and Danks (White Sox). Because of that, Boston's rotation is not that much worse than those teams' rotations, even though those teams have much better front-end starters than Boston does. That's why many of us are characterizing the Red Sox rotation as 3-3-3-3-3 and other rotations as 1-2-3-4-5. But you're confusing that relative emphasis on the 4th/5th starters with 6th/7th/8th starter depth. Like chavo says, a fair point to make is that the fragility of their starters makes their 6/7/8 guys more important. But your insistence that a rotation full of mid-rotation guys ("3/3/3/3/3") means their 6/7/8 guys are more important just doesn't make much sense, which is why you're getting pushback on it.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 12, 2015 13:12:33 GMT -5
Wright is currently the 6th starter and a guy you can be fairly confident can step in if needed, and not suck. As the season progresses, he hopefully becomes more of an insurance against a rash of injuries. (I still love him as a long man and spot starter on the MLB roster, though, where I think he'd be much more useful than yet another RH setup guy.) Barnes may well have already moved past him, but not by so much that it would likely make a difference over a handful of starts. You might be better off in the long run, if there's a ST or early-season injury, with just letting Wright do his job while keeping Barnes in AAA where he can work on what he still needs to work on. By mid-season, things are very different. In Johnson you've likely added another guy who can hold his own if you're crippled by multiple injuries. But much more importantly, between Owens, Rodriguez, and Barnes, you have some tangible chance of having someone so good that you'll want to make room for them in the rotation, even if everyone is healthy. There's a pretty good chance that by mid-season you have 8 or 9 MLB-caliber starters, pretty much covering even the worst of injury situations. And there's a solid chance that the five best of them will be even better than what you've got now. Really, unless they have three simultaneous injuries before, say, mid/late-June, I think there's nothing to worry about. But that's probably true of most teams anyway. The Sox have always been wary of giving substantial innings to young pitchers in a pennant race. They learned this the hard way when they had to go with Kyle Wieland and Andrew Miller in 2011 in many key games. Wieland had good AAA numbers, but he couldn't even give the Red Sox credible starts which subsequently put a strain on their bullpen. They traded for Jake Peavy in 2013, as opposed to putting a decent AAA pitcher like Workman in the rotation. For that reason I would be surprised if more than one of Wright, Rodriguez, Barnes, or Owens ends up in the rotation for any substantial stretch. If one of the five has a long-term injury or just plain fails, I would expect the Red Sox to make a deal for a veteran starter over giving the reins to one of their inexperienced arms and I'd be surprised, if Johnson sees much time in the majors at all this year.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 12, 2015 15:33:29 GMT -5
Wright is currently the 6th starter and a guy you can be fairly confident can step in if needed, and not suck. As the season progresses, he hopefully becomes more of an insurance against a rash of injuries. (I still love him as a long man and spot starter on the MLB roster, though, where I think he'd be much more useful than yet another RH setup guy.) Barnes may well have already moved past him, but not by so much that it would likely make a difference over a handful of starts. You might be better off in the long run, if there's a ST or early-season injury, with just letting Wright do his job while keeping Barnes in AAA where he can work on what he still needs to work on. By mid-season, things are very different. In Johnson you've likely added another guy who can hold his own if you're crippled by multiple injuries. But much more importantly, between Owens, Rodriguez, and Barnes, you have some tangible chance of having someone so good that you'll want to make room for them in the rotation, even if everyone is healthy. There's a pretty good chance that by mid-season you have 8 or 9 MLB-caliber starters, pretty much covering even the worst of injury situations. And there's a solid chance that the five best of them will be even better than what you've got now. Really, unless they have three simultaneous injuries before, say, mid/late-June, I think there's nothing to worry about. But that's probably true of most teams anyway. The Sox have always been wary of giving substantial innings to young pitchers in a pennant race. They learned this the hard way when they had to go with Kyle Wieland and Andrew Miller in 2011 in many key games. Wieland had good AAA numbers, but he couldn't even give the Red Sox credible starts which subsequently put a strain on their bullpen. They traded for Jake Peavy in 2013, as opposed to putting a decent AAA pitcher like Workman in the rotation. For that reason I would be surprised if more than one of Wright, Rodriguez, Barnes, or Owens ends up in the rotation for any substantial stretch. If one of the five has a long-term injury or just plain fails, I would expect the Red Sox to make a deal for a veteran starter over giving the reins to one of their inexperienced arms and I'd be surprised, if Johnson sees much time in the majors at all this year. I agree with the overall point, but there's a logical fallacy here in equating Kyle Weiland (whom I completely blanked from my brain, by the way) with the current crop of starters ... it's the same "best prospects in the system are equal at any one time" fallacy you see a lot in analysis of past performance of a certain team's prospects. Kyle Weiland was never at the same level as these guys. In the end, I don't think there's any doubt that the Sox would prefer to avoid depending too much on rookies, but, perhaps obviously, a lot depends on how the other four guys in the rotation are doing, if there's one big injury/failure. If, say, Masterson is bad or injured, but the rest of the guys are all performing, then they can try some of the rookies (assuming they look good in AAA, of course). If the remaining guys are kind of flailing a bit, then you're looking for too much from a rookie. Personally, I still suspect that if there's a long-term opening, the Sox will figure out which prospects are not part of the core and see if they can swing a deal for a rental of one of the big FA pitchers (Zimmerman, Cueto, etc). A good first half at the plate from Marrero and Cecchini would be nice ...
|
|
|