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 12, 2015 16:22:15 GMT -5
I know they are trying to win this year and they should be but they also need to let the young guys sink or swim in certain cases. Meaning, if they are adding a Hamels or Zimmerman type that's great but if they are adding a Peavy type that's junk.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 12, 2015 16:23:26 GMT -5
I know they are trying to win this year and they should be but they also need to let the young guys sink or swim in certain cases. Meaning, if they are adding a Hamels or Zimmerman type that's great but if they are adding a Peavy type that's junk. That's a really bad example because Jake Peavy actually helped the Red Sox win a World Series by being better than Allen Webster.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 12, 2015 16:55:54 GMT -5
I know they are trying to win this year and they should be but they also need to let the young guys sink or swim in certain cases. Meaning, if they are adding a Hamels or Zimmerman type that's great but if they are adding a Peavy type that's junk. That's a really bad example because Jake Peavy actually helped the Red Sox win a World Series by being better than Allen Webster. No because these guys should be better than Webster and Peavy had one solid playoff game albeit in a crucial spot in the division series then was god awful hugs other starts.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 12, 2015 18:09:01 GMT -5
That's a really bad example because Jake Peavy actually helped the Red Sox win a World Series by being better than Allen Webster. No because these guys should be better than Webster and Peavy had one solid playoff game albeit in a crucial spot in the division series then was god awful hugs other starts. Well, technically he was replacing Doubront.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 13, 2015 16:04:32 GMT -5
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 ... It's not really an apples to oranges comparison because the comparison isn't in quality but in experience. Though Wieland certainly wasn't Rodriguez or Owens, he was regarded as a credible back-end starting pitching prospect at the time, and had two straight very decent years of performance in the high minors. I don't recall any widespread belief that he was a QUADA pitcher. The lesson is that with any inexperienced pitcher, you just don't know how they will react and play in certain situations until they do. I am not sure if a pitcher is more likely to hit his expectations just because he is more talented. Only the expectations should be higher, not the chance that they will actually reach those expectations.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 13, 2015 17:31:02 GMT -5
No because these guys should be better than Webster and Peavy had one solid playoff game albeit in a crucial spot in the division series then was god awful hugs other starts. Well, technically he was replacing Doubront. Who had a 7 3 1 1 3 4 postseason line, versus Peavy's 12.2 16 10 4 8. And in fact it was Workman, who was coming off three excellent starts, who he replaced in the regular season rotation, and Wright who was sixth on the depth chart (seventh counting Buchholz) at the time of the trade. According to the F.O., Peavy wasn't really acquired to significantly upgrade the rotation -- he was acquired as depth insurance against injuries (if combined with significant underperformance by Workman and Wright) which didn't in fact happen. There's no argument that he became a 1-win upgrade over Workman in 10 starts, and it's entirely unclear that he represented an upgrade to Doubront as a post-season 4th starter. I felt then that his acquisition cost was too high for the potential benefits, and I've never changed my mind; I don't trade Iglesias to go from 9x.0% to 9x.5% odds of making the post-season. They could have traded just Montas (and maybe Rondon) to get a bullpen arm to fill the role Workman eventually did.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 13, 2015 17:46:14 GMT -5
I think Peavey was picked up more because they didn't know when or if Clay B would be available.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 13, 2015 19:27:14 GMT -5
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 ... It's not really an apples to oranges comparison because the comparison isn't in quality but in experience. Though Wieland certainly wasn't Rodriguez or Owens, he was regarded as a credible back-end starting pitching prospect at the time, and had two straight very decent years of performance in the high minors. I don't recall any widespread belief that he was a QUADA pitcher. The lesson is that with any inexperienced pitcher, you just don't know how they will react and play in certain situations until they do. I am not sure if a pitcher is more likely to hit his expectations just because he is more talented. Only the expectations should be higher, not the chance that they will actually reach those expectations. POI: Weiland was not seen as a "credible back-end SP prospect" at the time. I'm pretty sure we had him pegged as likely being a reliever. Think something like a Ranaudo where it was like "eh, MAYBE he's a number 5?" If you look at his scouting report in his profile from the time he was traded, it closes with "Best suited as a late inning bullpen arm on a contending team as major league career progresses. Capable of fulfilling a swing man role when stretched out. Ceiling of a back-of-the-rotation starter with a second division club."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 13, 2015 19:38:49 GMT -5
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 ... It's not really an apples to oranges comparison because the comparison isn't in quality but in experience. Though Wieland certainly wasn't Rodriguez or Owens, he was regarded as a credible back-end starting pitching prospect at the time, and had two straight very decent years of performance in the high minors. I don't recall any widespread belief that he was a QUADA pitcher. The lesson is that with any inexperienced pitcher, you just don't know how they will react and play in certain situations until they do. I am not sure if a pitcher is more likely to hit his expectations just because he is more talented. Only the expectations should be higher, not the chance that they will actually reach those expectations. Well, if we think of the range of possible performance as a normal distribution, which I think we probably should, a pitcher with a higher median projection should also have a higher floor (i.e., a high chance of being a serviceable starting pitcher). It seems like you're implying that Weiland and Owens would have the same bust rate, which I don't think is true. If the pitcher with the better projection doesn't meet his expectations, he might still be a fine back-end starter. If the pitcher who projects to be a back-end starter doesn't meet his expectations, he's a sub-replacement-level scrub.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 13, 2015 20:35:11 GMT -5
Individual distributions are certainly not normal - they'll have a very long fat tail on the negative side down to zero, but practically can never have a mirrored distribution on the positive side. Because of injury all minor league pitchers have a higher chance at a zero war career than a one war career, too. Also, a higher median protection shouldn't tell us a higher floor because each players (non-normal) distribution of outcomes will be different. (Or rather the floor may be higher by definition , but the chance at that floor is not comparable.)
Anyway, Weiland wasn't good, few thought he was, and is revisionist history to at all compare them, other than the banal point that "hey, lots of pitchers fail.". Welland may be moderately comparable to Renaudo, whose pedigree was significantly better. He has nothing comparable to Owens our Rodriguez.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 13, 2015 22:45:17 GMT -5
It's not really an apples to oranges comparison because the comparison isn't in quality but in experience. Though Wieland certainly wasn't Rodriguez or Owens, he was regarded as a credible back-end starting pitching prospect at the time, and had two straight very decent years of performance in the high minors. I don't recall any widespread belief that he was a QUADA pitcher. The lesson is that with any inexperienced pitcher, you just don't know how they will react and play in certain situations until they do. I am not sure if a pitcher is more likely to hit his expectations just because he is more talented. Only the expectations should be higher, not the chance that they will actually reach those expectations. Well, if we think of the range of possible performance as a normal distribution, which I think we probably should, a pitcher with a higher median projection should also have a higher floor (i.e., a high chance of being a serviceable starting pitcher). It seems like you're implying that Weiland and Owens would have the same bust rate, which I don't think is true. If the pitcher with the better projection doesn't meet his expectations, he might still be a fine back-end starter. If the pitcher who projects to be a back-end starter doesn't meet his expectations, he's a sub-replacement-level scrub. [ The ultimate floor of a prospect especially a pitcher is always overestimated. The game of baseball is so competitive from both a mental and physical standpoint that it mandates that many talented pitchers will fail. In short there is no floor for a pitching prospect. They all have a material and under appreciated chance of failure. I don't think that the bust rate is equal for every pitcher but it's a lot closer than you think it is. Further, it's not just the ultimate bust rate that should be considered but the initial bust rate. A more talented pitcher like Owens maybe more likely to recover from a bad start, to have a good career, but that won't help in September. Regardless of what SP thought of Weiland at the time there were plenty of people who thought he could start in the majors. There was no indication that he would completely collapse as he did. To say that can't possibly happen to Henry Owens or Edwin Rodriguez is naieve. That's why it's silly to project a rotation with Wright, Rodriguez, and Owens. They aren't going to put a rotation out there full of inexperienced pitchers no matter how good they are assuming they are in a pennant race. They will make a trade for a veteran starter. Young pitching breaks your heart. That's always been true.
|
|
|
Post by cologneredsox on Mar 14, 2015 6:03:27 GMT -5
Well, if we think of the range of possible performance as a normal distribution, which I think we probably should, a pitcher with a higher median projection should also have a higher floor (i.e., a high chance of being a serviceable starting pitcher). It seems like you're implying that Weiland and Owens would have the same bust rate, which I don't think is true. If the pitcher with the better projection doesn't meet his expectations, he might still be a fine back-end starter. If the pitcher who projects to be a back-end starter doesn't meet his expectations, he's a sub-replacement-level scrub. [ The ultimate floor of a prospect especially a pitcher is always overestimated. The game of baseball is so competitive from both a mental and physical standpoint that it mandates that many talented pitchers will fail. In short there is no floor for a pitching prospect. They all have a material and under appreciated chance of failure. I don't think that the bust rate is equal for every pitcher but it's a lot closer than you think it is. Further, it's not just the ultimate bust rate that should be considered but the initial bust rate. A more talented pitcher like Owens maybe more likely to recover from a bad start, to have a good career, but that won't help in September. Regardless of what SP thought of Weiland at the time there were plenty of people who thought he could start in the majors. There was no indication that he would completely collapse as he did. To say that can't possibly happen to Henry Owens or Edwin Rodriguez is naieve. That's why it's silly to project a rotation with Wright, Rodriguez, and Owens. They aren't going to put a rotation out there full of inexperienced pitchers no matter how good they are assuming they are in a pennant race. They will make a trade for a veteran starter. Young pitching breaks your heart. That's always been true. Counterargument: Cardinals 2013?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 14, 2015 8:08:32 GMT -5
Another thing we tend to do is project lessor starting pitching prospects as bullpen arms especially back end of the bullpen arms seemingly without regard for what makes them a lessor prospect. Every pitcher kind of gets lumped into the same category when in reality there are certain skills that play up better in the bullpen, such as velocity.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 14, 2015 9:19:19 GMT -5
The ultimate floor of a prospect especially a pitcher is always overestimated. The game of baseball is so competitive from both a mental and physical standpoint that it mandates that many talented pitchers will fail. In short there is no floor for a pitching prospect. They all have a material and under appreciated chance of failure. I don't think that the bust rate is equal for every pitcher but it's a lot closer than you think it is. Further, it's not just the ultimate bust rate that should be considered but the initial bust rate. A more talented pitcher like Owens maybe more likely to recover from a bad start, to have a good career, but that won't help in September. Regardless of what SP thought of Weiland at the time there were plenty of people who thought he could start in the majors. There was no indication that he would completely collapse as he did. To say that can't possibly happen to Henry Owens or Edwin Rodriguez is naieve. Noone is saying that Owens or Rodriguez can't bust (initially or ultimately), just that their odds of doing so are significantly lower than Weiland's odds were. For any reasonable distribution of probabilities, a higher median projection also means a lower bust rate, initial or otherwise, and Owens and Rodriguez are significantly better-projected prospects that Weiland was.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 14, 2015 11:28:05 GMT -5
Well, if we think of the range of possible performance as a normal distribution, which I think we probably should, a pitcher with a higher median projection should also have a higher floor (i.e., a high chance of being a serviceable starting pitcher). It seems like you're implying that Weiland and Owens would have the same bust rate, which I don't think is true. If the pitcher with the better projection doesn't meet his expectations, he might still be a fine back-end starter. If the pitcher who projects to be a back-end starter doesn't meet his expectations, he's a sub-replacement-level scrub. [ The ultimate floor of a prospect especially a pitcher is always overestimated. The game of baseball is so competitive from both a mental and physical standpoint that it mandates that many talented pitchers will fail. In short there is no floor for a pitching prospect. They all have a material and under appreciated chance of failure. I don't think that the bust rate is equal for every pitcher but it's a lot closer than you think it is. Further, it's not just the ultimate bust rate that should be considered but the initial bust rate. A more talented pitcher like Owens maybe more likely to recover from a bad start, to have a good career, but that won't help in September. Regardless of what SP thought of Weiland at the time there were plenty of people who thought he could start in the majors. There was no indication that he would completely collapse as he did. To say that can't possibly happen to Henry Owens or Edwin Rodriguez is naieve. That's why it's silly to project a rotation with Wright, Rodriguez, and Owens. They aren't going to put a rotation out there full of inexperienced pitchers no matter how good they are assuming they are in a pennant race. They will make a trade for a veteran starter. Young pitching breaks your heart. That's always been true. Sure, it's pretty much always implicit that you're discussing reasonable floor and reasonable ceiling with a guy, and I agree that guys' floors tend to get inflated a bit to something like a 35th percentile outcome rather than around 20th percentile where it should probably be. If you want to get super-literal, there is no floor for any prospect. They could have their career derailed by health issues (Westmoreland, Kalish). They could incredulously just stop developing or take major steps backwards (Lars, Lavarnway - in the sense that he also forgot how to hit). But the same is true in the other direction, where you couldn't possibly project a player to do better - the example I beat to death is Papelbon learning a splitter from Schilling after he'd already debuted in the majors. Sometimes I wonder if Swihart's development will end up with him turning into a defense-first catcher and be the next example of this. And sometimes there are neutral evolutions that you could never reasonably predict, like Buchholz going from a guy with two great offspeed pitches - the changeup and curve - as high as Triple-A becoming a guy who relies mainly on a two-seam and, at one point last year, couldn't even remember how to throw his damn changeup. It's playing percentages. Yeah, sometimes you're going to double down on 11 and draw a 2. Doesn't mean, when you're deciding what to do, you need to make sure you remember that there are 2's in the deck that you might draw - you just generally refer to percentages. And another POI: Weiland fell off the radar for medical issues. He's basically the pitching Kalish. Recent story here: m.mlb.com/news/article/68351512/long-recovery-has-kyle-weiland-back-at-astros-camp
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 14, 2015 14:43:02 GMT -5
I don't think that a player has no theoretical or realistic ceiling. If that were true Chris you and I could in theory be top Major League baseball players and we know that's not true . All players are limited by their physical talent to some degree. No one can throw 200 MPH because it's physically impossible. But every prospect could realistically be nothing. Further the possible outcomes aren't normally distributed. There are far more Justin Smoak's than there are Daniel Nava's. Young pitchers in general also have a higher failure rate than pitchers. This is a very good thing. That even a player as talented as Xander Boegarts struggles at first in the major leagues speaks to the richness of the experienced major league talent pool. It SHOULD be difficult for prospects to establish themselves in the majors. MLB will be better off if it can attract even more physical talent to make it even harder to break in. To tie this back to the topic at hand, so that jjmei doesn't move the discussion to the dead zone, the Sox don't have the starting pitching depth that many may think because all of the second tier pitchers are so inexperienced. If the Sox are in the pennant race they will likely look toadd to that depth through a trade. The Sox do have the prospects and money to do that and will likely look to do so.
|
|
|
Post by jclmontana on Mar 14, 2015 15:14:04 GMT -5
To tie this back to the topic at hand, so that jjmei doesn't move the discussion to the dead zone, the Sox don't have the starting pitching depth that many may think because all of the second tier pitchers are so inexperienced. If the Sox are in the pennant race they will likely look toadd to that depth through a trade. The Sox do have the prospects and money to do that and will likely look to do so. Sure, but depth is depth. The context of a pennant race and individual performance of the depth pitcher(s) will determine whether the front office feels comfortable with what they have or want get someone else. Ben states, and I believe, that the front office always looks to upgrade when it makes sense. but, for example, if the offense is strong, and 4/5 of the rotation is solid, then they may not look to replace the depth pitcher (that doesn't mean they won't look to get a clear upgrade for the front end of the rotation, but that is a different scenario, even if it means the depth pitcher loses his rotation spot).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 14, 2015 18:03:54 GMT -5
the Sox don't have the starting pitching depth that many may think because all of the second tier pitchers are so inexperienced. If the Sox are in the pennant race they will likely look toadd to that depth through a trade. The Sox do have the prospects and money to do that and will likely look to do so. I don't think they're adverse to trusting young players (which I think is the crux of your argument), and if anything, the Peavy trade seems like the exception rather than the rule. The Red Sox have trusted young pitchers in pennant races before-- think Lester in 2007 and Buchholz and Masterson in 2008. And they've certainly trusted young position players as well-- think Xander in 2013 and Ellsbury in 2007. I agree that if there's a veteran pitcher available for the right price, the Red Sox will certainly look into it (and may well prefer to have a less-risky veteran as opposed to a more-risky rookie) and that you're not going to see more than one or two rookies in the rotation at the end of the year if the Red Sox are contenders. But if one of the rookie pitchers in blowing away AAA and makes the rotation mid-season due to injury, I think the Red Sox absolutely give him a chance to hold down that rotation spot as opposed to immediately trying to trade for a veteran replacement.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 14, 2015 18:44:53 GMT -5
Come on man. Lester had 15 major league starts in 2006 an never would have pitched in the 2007 playoffs had Wakefield been healthy. Buccholz and Madterson had 25 starts between them in 2008. Buccholz was terrible and got demoted and Masterson ended up in the bullpen. Neither was part of the starting rotation come playoff time.
The current crop of second tier starters has less than five major league starts combined, both by Stephen Wright.
As far as playoff starts go, Lester is the only pitcher to start a playoff game for the Red Sox during the current run who had less than 20 career starts entering that season. And even he was an emergency starter.
So no they do not trust young pitchers and they have shown that time and time again. If there is a long term injury to one of the pitchers they will make a trade.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2015 19:45:18 GMT -5
Come on man. Lester had 15 major league starts in 2006 an never would have pitched in the 2007 playoffs had Wakefield been healthy. Buccholz and Madterson had 25 starts between them in 2008. Buccholz was terrible and got demoted and Masterson ended up in the bullpen. Neither was part of the starting rotation come playoff time. The current crop of second tier starters has less than five major league starts combined, both by Stephen Wright. As far as playoff starts go, Lester is the only pitcher to start a playoff game for the Red Sox during the current run who had less than 20 career starts entering that season. And even he was an emergency starter. So no they do not trust young pitchers and they have shown that time and time again. If there is a long term injury to one of the pitchers they will make a trade. Time and time again? I must be forgetting a lot of the young starters they've graduated in the past few years...
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 14, 2015 20:19:33 GMT -5
The whole "The Red Sox are unwilling to trust their own pitching prospects" argument would hold more water if those ex-fringe-prospects were going on to star elsewhere. Masterson's been good off and on, but they traded him for a bat that they needed. Stephen Fife has been ok. But who are these guys who they didn't give chances to who have shown the Red Sox have made a big mistake?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 14, 2015 21:11:41 GMT -5
Maybe they've just been good at identifying who they can't trust. Which doesn't mean they won't be good at the opposite. Should draw a black and white conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 14, 2015 21:58:29 GMT -5
The whole "The Red Sox are unwilling to trust their own pitching prospects" argument would hold more water if those ex-fringe-prospects were going on to star elsewhere. Masterson's been good off and on, but they traded him for a bat that they needed. Stephen Fife has been ok. But who are these guys who they didn't give chances to who have shown the Red Sox have made a big mistake? Would Annibal Sanchez count?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Mar 14, 2015 23:00:33 GMT -5
The whole "The Red Sox are unwilling to trust their own pitching prospects" argument would hold more water if those ex-fringe-prospects were going on to star elsewhere. Masterson's been good off and on, but they traded him for a bat that they needed. Stephen Fife has been ok. But who are these guys who they didn't give chances to who have shown the Red Sox have made a big mistake? Yeah I think you are misunderstanding James. I think that the Red Sox reluctance to trust young pitchers is well warranted. Young pitchers a lot of times don't work out. I completely agreed with getting Peavy when others just wanted the Sox to go with Workman or Webster. I also agree with getting Miley and Masterson this year as opposed to relying on two of Wright Webster and DelaRosa. My argument is more that the Sox may have very talented depth but it isn't very experienced. I suspect that the Red Sox as Gammons reported are trying to do something about that and would if the price were right. If they do need to augment their rotation come July they will likely look to do so via a trade as opposed to giving the ball to Owens or Rodriguez and that's what they should do because neither of those guys has any experience.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 14, 2015 23:13:06 GMT -5
Come on man. Lester had 15 major league starts in 2006 an never would have pitched in the 2007 playoffs had Wakefield been healthy. Buccholz and Madterson had 25 starts between them in 2008. Buccholz was terrible and got demoted and Masterson ended up in the bullpen. Neither was part of the starting rotation come playoff time. The current crop of second tier starters has less than five major league starts combined, both by Stephen Wright. As far as playoff starts go, Lester is the only pitcher to start a playoff game for the Red Sox during the current run who had less than 20 career starts entering that season. And even he was an emergency starter. So no they do not trust young pitchers and they have shown that time and time again. If there is a long term injury to one of the pitchers they will make a trade. Of course Lester was an emergency starter-- remember, we're talking about contingency plans if one of the original five starters is hurt or ineffective. And while Buchholz and Masterson did not end the 2008 season in the playoff rotation, that's mainly because the guys ahead of them got healthy by October. The point is that they trusted those guys to pitch major stretches of the season in lieu of making a trade for a veteran fill-in. Your contention is that they would never trust an unproven starter in a pennant race, and I've provided three examples to the contrary.
|
|
|