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 manfred on Sept 27, 2020 14:11:21 GMT -5
So... one question on Houck. Let’s assume he’s penciled into the rotation next season. What will be his situation for innings management? His high, I think is around ~120 and then he can’t over ~50 this season even with simulations.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 27, 2020 19:17:44 GMT -5
So... one question on Houck. Let’s assume he’s penciled into the rotation next season. What will be his situation for innings management? His high, I think is around ~120 and then he can’t over ~50 this season even with simulations. Great question. As good as he is, they can send him to the bullpen on some of the occasions when they have 5 good healthy pitchers -- Sale, E-Rod, Acquistion, Eovaldi, Pivetta or Perez -- and limit his innings that way. It wouldn't preclude him from being a post-season starter, however.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 27, 2020 19:31:45 GMT -5
So... one question on Houck. Let’s assume he’s penciled into the rotation next season. What will be his situation for innings management? His high, I think is around ~120 and then he can’t over ~50 this season even with simulations. Great question. As good as he is, they can send him to the bullpen on some of the occasions when they have 5 good healthy pitchers -- Sale, E-Rod, Acquistion, Eovaldi, Pivetta or Perez -- and limit his innings that way. It wouldn't preclude him from being a post-season starter, however. That is sort of my hope... maybe for part of the season he and Pivetta can be a two-headed monster. I do worry about how this lost season will impact pitchers across the board. Teams will have to be careful. But if the Sox start with Eovaldi, Perez, Pivetta, and Houck, plus maybe a Mazza, say, and can ease ERod and Sale back in — not to mention a possible addition... they can keep arms fresh, I think.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Sept 27, 2020 20:02:27 GMT -5
Great question. As good as he is, they can send him to the bullpen on some of the occasions when they have 5 good healthy pitchers -- Sale, E-Rod, Acquistion, Eovaldi, Pivetta or Perez -- and limit his innings that way. It wouldn't preclude him from being a post-season starter, however. That is sort of my hope... maybe for part of the season he and Pivetta can be a two-headed monster. I do worry about how this lost season will impact pitchers across the board. Teams will have to be careful. But if the Sox start with Eovaldi, Perez, Pivetta, and Houck, plus maybe a Mazza, say, and can ease ERod and Sale back in — not to mention a possible addition... they can keep arms fresh, I think. Does anybody know what teams are allowed to do and not to do this fall? Obviously it’s not game situations but there is still time for simulations. Or is it just offseason workout programs that the team suggests ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2020 8:58:47 GMT -5
Or, you start Houck in Worcester (assuming full MLB rotation health, including a healthy ERod) and limit his innings/pitch count there artificially while getting another year of control. Just a thought, not necessarily advocating. blizzards39, there is going to be a six-week fall instructional camp starting next week to which players are reporting at the end of this week for intake. The Red Sox are going to try to play games against other teams, but the other clubs close to them include the Twins, who aren't playing anyone, and Braves, who instead are doing something at their AAA park in Gwinnett. So that narrows it to the O's and Rays, so we'll see if they get to play anyone. Otherwise, it'll be workouts and intrasquads. As it relates to this thread and Houck, players on the 40-man are not allowed to be brought in for that unless they missed time due to COVID or get an exemption (you'd hope, for example, that an Aybar could get one if they wanted to bring him in, and perhaps Wilson).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 28, 2020 10:29:38 GMT -5
Or, you start Houck in Worcester (assuming full MLB rotation health, including a healthy ERod) and limit his innings/pitch count there artificially while getting another year of control. Just a thought, not necessarily advocating. blizzards39, there is going to be a six-week fall instructional camp starting next week to which players are reporting at the end of this week for intake. The Red Sox are going to try to play games against other teams, but the other clubs close to them include the Twins, who aren't playing anyone, and Braves, who instead are doing something at their AAA park in Gwinnett. So that narrows it to the O's and Rays, so we'll see if they get to play anyone. Otherwise, it'll be workouts and intrasquads. As it relates to this thread and Houck, players on the 40-man are not allowed to be brought in for that unless they missed time due to COVID or get an exemption (you'd hope, for example, that an Aybar could get one if they wanted to bring him in, and perhaps Wilson). I had to mull the Houck part over. My guess is that if he's pitching like he pitched in the majors, he's making the initial rotation. Whether you view it statistically or scouting, he was one of the best pitchers in baseball for a very short time. They aren't likely to keep that down. On the other hand, to stretch him out, they might consider sending him to Pawtucket for a while, the old June break thingamabob, maybe when Sale returns. I doubt though that they would be able to get an extra year of control because they would have to keep him down the standard 15 or 16 days plus 2.7 x the days he was here. That seems like a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2020 12:39:16 GMT -5
He was up for 12 days, so 32 2021 days offsets it.
My point can probably be made more broadly. I think Houck probably is in the MLB rotation for a significant amount of time next year. I think he spends some time in Worcester at some point if there are 5 other effective starters in Boston. It might be opening day, it might be later in the season. With that tone they might be able to get a year back and can at least manage his innings without taxing the MLB bullpen. May or may not be opening day and it probably depends on whether Pivetta is effective.
If you have healthy and effective ERod, Eovaldi, Pérez, acquisition, and Pivetta, I think it's not a bad thing to option Houck and have one of the best #6 starters in baseball.
Now, if he comes into camp next year and looks dominant, like he might be your damn ace, then yeah, don't send him down. But if he looks like he's even only a marginal upgrade over your 5th-best option, I think you keep as much flexibility as possible.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 28, 2020 13:23:36 GMT -5
Put that way, we agree.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 28, 2020 13:49:48 GMT -5
Houck finished 45th in MLB among starting pitchers in bWAR, which is the borderline ranking that divides a #2 from a #3 starter for a full season.Shane Bieber led MLB with 8.0 bWAR per 30 GS. Houck had 12.0.
As I noted in another thread, Houck led MLB in WPA per start, again topping Bieber.
In terms of results, it was at the very least one of the three best limited debuts (retaining rookie status) for a starting pitcher in MLB history, and it's almost certainly the best of the lively ball era.
A guy I never heard of, George McQuillan, was viewed in 1907 and 1908 as the next Christy Mathewson and was very clearly going to be something like that. He started his career on 9/22/07 with three straight shutouts -- the middle just 6 innings, presumably because of rain -- with a 24 10 0 0 6 21 line. The 21 strikeouts, in terms of ratio to league rate, is the equivalent of 51 this year, or of Houck fanning 38 in 21 innings in his three starts. (Ratios probably exaggerate this, as they do ERA+ for deadball pitchers -- you need to use standard deviations instead.) He started twice more and wasn't quite as dominating, but the next year he would have been runner-up to Mathewson if they had the CY. Through 1910 he had an ERA+ of 153 and had 18.4 WAR in just under 800 innings. He then started drinking himself out the bigs -- 91 ERA+ and 2.1 WAR in nearly the same amount of innings over the next 8 years. Syphilis didn't help, either.
The modern guy who made the biggest splash before Houck was Bob Milacki with the O's in 1988. He had 1.5 bWAR in his three great starts, but that's because pitchers still went the distance in those days, and that's the only stat where he beats Houck. And in fact by the end of his rookie season, he'd been overworked to the point he was never anything special again.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 28, 2020 14:01:42 GMT -5
Houck finished 45th in MLB among starting pitchers in bWAR, which is the borderline ranking that divides a #2 from a #3 starter for a full season.Shane Bieber led MLB with 8.0 bWAR per 30 GS. Houck had 12.0.
As I noted in another thread, Houck led MLB in WPA per start, again topping Bieber.
In terms of results, it was at the very least one of the three best limited debuts (retaining rookie status) for a starting pitcher in MLB history, and it's almost certainly the best of the lively ball era.
A guy I never heard of, George McQuillan, was viewed in 1907 and 1908 as the next Christy Mathewson and was very clearly going to be something like that. He started his career on 9/22/07 with three straight shutouts -- the middle just 6 innings, presumably because of rain -- with a 24 10 0 0 6 21 line. The 21 strikeouts, in terms of ratio to league rate, is the equivalent of 51 this year, or of Houck fanning 38 in 21 innings in his three starts. (Ratios probably exaggerate this, as they do ERA+ for deadball pitchers -- you need to use standard deviations instead.) He started twice more and wasn't quite as dominating, but the next year he would have been runner-up to Mathewson if they had the CY. Through 1910 he had an ERA+ of 153 and had 18.4 WAR in just under 800 innings. He then started drinking himself out the bigs -- 91 ERA+ and 2.1 WAR in nearly the same amount of innings over the next 8 years. Syphilis didn't help, either.
The modern guy who made the biggest splash before Houck was Bob Milacki with the O's in 1988. He had 1.5 bWAR in his three great starts, but that's because pitchers still went the distance in those days, and that's the only stat where he beats Houck. And in fact by the end of his rookie season, he'd been overworked to the point he was never anything special again.
What happens to his numbers if he has a bad next start? Houck did really well. But he is someone who is heavily reliant on a two-pitch mix that will not be quite as tricky after a few looks. I think he could be good, but without a real third pitch, he has likely inflated expectations unduly.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 28, 2020 14:15:33 GMT -5
Houck finished 45th in MLB among starting pitchers in bWAR, which is the borderline ranking that divides a #2 from a #3 starter for a full season.Shane Bieber led MLB with 8.0 bWAR per 30 GS. Houck had 12.0. As I noted in another thread, Houck led MLB in WPA per start, again topping Bieber. In terms of results, it was at the very least one of the three best limited debuts (retaining rookie status) for a starting pitcher in MLB history, and it's almost certainly the best of the lively ball era. A guy I never heard of, George McQuillan, was viewed in 1907 and 1908 as the next Christy Mathewson and was very clearly going to be something like that. He started his career on 9/22/07 with three straight shutouts -- the middle just 6 innings, presumably because of rain -- with a 24 10 0 0 6 21 line. The 21 strikeouts, in terms of ratio to league rate, is the equivalent of 51 this year, or of Houck fanning 38 in 21 innings in his three starts. (Ratios probably exaggerate this, as they do ERA+ for deadball pitchers -- you need to use standard deviations instead.) He started twice more and wasn't quite as dominating, but the next year he would have been runner-up to Mathewson if they had the CY. Through 1910 he had an ERA+ of 153 and had 18.4 WAR in just under 800 innings. He then started drinking himself out the bigs -- 91 ERA+ and 2.1 WAR in nearly the same amount of innings over the next 8 years. Syphilis didn't help, either.
The modern guy who made the biggest splash before Houck was Bob Milacki with the O's in 1988. He had 1.5 bWAR in his three great starts, but that's because pitchers still went the distance in those days, and that's the only stat where he beats Houck. And in fact by the end of his rookie season, he'd been overworked to the point he was never anything special again.
What happens to his numbers if he has a bad next start? Houck did really well. But he is someone who is heavily reliant on a two-pitch mix that will not be quite as tricky after a few looks. I think he could be good, but without a real third pitch, he has likely inflated expectations unduly. 4 seam FB, sinker, plus-plus slider, all tunneled from the same spot should do the trick and reduce L/R variations. Developing a splitter is an enhancement. With modern trackman data, teams pretty much know what to expect before even seeing them. Second look theory will soon be out of synch with reality.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 28, 2020 14:27:35 GMT -5
Generic question.
Houck's motion is almost a mirror image of Chris Sale's motion. Does anyone think batters get any advantage the second time they see Chris Sale ?
I might be wrong here but not far wrong. I think he's faced 64 batters in three games. That means he's faced 10 batters a 3rd time through the order. I don't remember a hit on any of the third times through the order.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 28, 2020 14:44:41 GMT -5
LOL, one more then I need some sleep.
Brass b's measurement..
His second start vs the Yankees. The Yankees not only had a winning streak going but also were about to set an all time record for wins against the Red Sox. The day before, one of the Yankees said they were well aware of that and had talked about it in the clubhouse.
He carried a nono into the 6th. I'm pretty sure every old fart on the board remembers Billy Rhor's second start which was also against the Yankees.
good night
|
|
|
Post by southernredsoxality on Sept 28, 2020 15:02:23 GMT -5
This dude was a really pleasant surprise this year and I would put him up there with Dalbec as the two prospects I’m most excited to watch next season. However, I have a hard time believing that his stuff, specially his slider, was consistently this good in the minors while he was putting up those meh type numbers. The way I see it, one of two things had to have happened. Either his slider took a jump to plus plus over the last year, or it was always there but he wasn’t allowed to throw it as much because of development goals like working on fastball command, coming up with a third pitch, etc. Either way this bodes well for his future, hopefully he does a Pedroia and far outperforms his upper minor league numbers.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Sept 28, 2020 15:37:17 GMT -5
After his first start and knowing he would get two more, I immediately thought of the 2001 season that also ended with the Sox out of the playoffs. After 64 relief appearances, Lowe asked to try starting and pitched 3 times. Comparing the numbers:
Inn H R ER W K Lowe 16 12 2 2 4 15 Houck 17 6 2 1 9 21
Lowe totaled 91.2 innings in 2001 and increased to 219.2 in 2002 finishing 2nd in era to Pedro with a 2.58
You could make the argument that was too large and increase as Lowe's era rose to 4.47 in 03 and 5.42 in 04 before moving on to the Dodgers.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 28, 2020 15:59:39 GMT -5
Houck finished 45th in MLB among starting pitchers in bWAR, which is the borderline ranking that divides a #2 from a #3 starter for a full season.Shane Bieber led MLB with 8.0 bWAR per 30 GS. Houck had 12.0.
As I noted in another thread, Houck led MLB in WPA per start, again topping Bieber.
In terms of results, it was at the very least one of the three best limited debuts (retaining rookie status) for a starting pitcher in MLB history, and it's almost certainly the best of the lively ball era.
A guy I never heard of, George McQuillan, was viewed in 1907 and 1908 as the next Christy Mathewson and was very clearly going to be something like that. He started his career on 9/22/07 with three straight shutouts -- the middle just 6 innings, presumably because of rain -- with a 24 10 0 0 6 21 line. The 21 strikeouts, in terms of ratio to league rate, is the equivalent of 51 this year, or of Houck fanning 38 in 21 innings in his three starts. (Ratios probably exaggerate this, as they do ERA+ for deadball pitchers -- you need to use standard deviations instead.) He started twice more and wasn't quite as dominating, but the next year he would have been runner-up to Mathewson if they had the CY. Through 1910 he had an ERA+ of 153 and had 18.4 WAR in just under 800 innings. He then started drinking himself out the bigs -- 91 ERA+ and 2.1 WAR in nearly the same amount of innings over the next 8 years. Syphilis didn't help, either.
The modern guy who made the biggest splash before Houck was Bob Milacki with the O's in 1988. He had 1.5 bWAR in his three great starts, but that's because pitchers still went the distance in those days, and that's the only stat where he beats Houck. And in fact by the end of his rookie season, he'd been overworked to the point he was never anything special again.
What happens to his numbers if he has a bad next start? Houck did really well. But he is someone who is heavily reliant on a two-pitch mix that will not be quite as tricky after a few looks. I think he could be good, but without a real third pitch, he has likely inflated expectations unduly. Nothing happens at all to his 2020 numbers if his next start is bad. It's just cool that it was the greatest cup of coffee start to a pitching career since 1907.
Of the guys who fit my criteria (3 GS, 200+ ERA+), there are 24 whose careers are over or nearly over. They have a career average WAR of 8.1. They include Josh Beckett, Jack McDowell, Johnny Schmitz (40's #2 starter, Tom Browning, Clay Buchholz, Ian Kennedy, Eric Gagne, and then a lot of guys you probably have never heard of.
The cool results are not the reason I'm excited. It's the stuff--the slider above all, and the fastball mix to a lesser extent.
And the whole third-pitch thing may well be overblown to the point of being wrong, because so far he's thrown his slider tons to lefties and they can't hit it at all. And the 2-seamer is so different from the 4-seamer that it's basically a changeup in terms of movement, and it has potential as a pitch to get lefties out, too (although he only threw 9 strikes with it to lefties in his starts, and got 7 fouls, a take, and an out in play, a 346' fly ball that was hit to a good spot in the field).
I think he needs the third pitch to be a strong #2 or an ace, and to survive multiple years without a decline from familiarity.
Right now the comp to Justin Masterson in terms of both pitch repertoire and style is so good it's almost eerie, except that Houck's slider and (probably) FB combo are significantly better (I'll do a thorough comp at some point). And Masterson had a 3-year stretch where he was a borderline #2 / #3 in terms of Win Probability Added; if you just use fWAR, he's even more impressive.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 28, 2020 16:02:53 GMT -5
After his first start and knowing he would get two more, I immediately thought of the 2001 season that also ended with the Sox out of the playoffs. After 64 relief appearances, Lowe asked to try starting and pitched 3 times. Comparing the numbers: Inn H R ER W K Lowe 16 12 2 2 4 15 Houck 17 6 2 1 9 21 Lowe totaled 91.2 innings in 2001 and increased to 219.2 in 2002 finishing 2nd in era to Pedro with a 2.58 You could make the argument that was too large and increase as Lowe's era rose to 4.47 in 03 and 5.42 in 04 before moving on to the Dodgers. I think the consensus on Lowe is that he, shall we say, enjoyed life too much to keep pitching at that level. The 2002 Lowe showed up in distinct stretches in 2004, and of course in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 28, 2020 17:54:18 GMT -5
Generic question. Houck's motion is almost a mirror image of Chris Sale's motion. Does anyone think batters get any advantage the second time they see Chris Sale ? I might be wrong here but not far wrong. I think he's faced 64 batters in three games. That means he's faced 10 batters a 3rd time through the order. I don't remember a hit on any of the third times through the order. Of course, when Sale is right, he throw mid-to-high 90s with outstanding command. Houck topped out at 94 and was generally 90-91. Sale (when right) doesn’t need to fool anyone.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 28, 2020 17:58:22 GMT -5
What happens to his numbers if he has a bad next start? Houck did really well. But he is someone who is heavily reliant on a two-pitch mix that will not be quite as tricky after a few looks. I think he could be good, but without a real third pitch, he has likely inflated expectations unduly. Nothing happens at all to his 2020 numbers if his next start is bad. It's just cool that it was the greatest cup of coffee start to a pitching career since 1907.
Of the guys who fit my criteria (3 GS, 200+ ERA+), there are 24 whose careers are over or nearly over. They have a career average WAR of 8.1. They include Josh Beckett, Jack McDowell, Johnny Schmitz (40's #2 starter, Tom Browning, Clay Buchholz, Ian Kennedy, Eric Gagne, and then a lot of guys you probably have never heard of.
The cool results are not the reason I'm excited. It's the stuff--the slider above all, and the fastball mix to a lesser extent.
And the whole third-pitch thing may well be overblown to the point of being wrong, because so far he's thrown his slider tons to lefties and they can't hit it at all. And the 2-seamer is so different from the 4-seamer that it's basically a changeup in terms of movement, and it has potential as a pitch to get lefties out, too (although he only threw 9 strikes with it to lefties in his starts, and got 7 fouls, a take, and an out in play, a 346' fly ball that was hit to a good spot in the field).
I think he needs the third pitch to be a strong #2 or an ace, and to survive multiple years without a decline from familiarity.
Right now the comp to Justin Masterson in terms of both pitch repertoire and style is so good it's almost eerie, except that Houck's slider and (probably) FB combo are significantly better (I'll do a thorough comp at some point). And Masterson had a 3-year stretch where he was a borderline #2 / #3 in terms of Win Probability Added; if you just use fWAR, he's even more impressive.
I wasn’t being snarky... I was actually curious what would happen to his numbers with an average start. I think one of the main things about the third pitch is that he may not need it when his sinker/slider combo is clicking, but on a night when one is not there, he could use something else to fall back on. I guess I figure if he was like those starts every game, his numbers in the minors would be better, and scouting reports more enthusiastic. Maybe I’m wrong, but I am guessing we got best case scenarios in terms of slider and maybe command.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 28, 2020 18:11:53 GMT -5
Generic question. Houck's motion is almost a mirror image of Chris Sale's motion. Does anyone think batters get any advantage the second time they see Chris Sale ? I might be wrong here but not far wrong. I think he's faced 64 batters in three games. That means he's faced 10 batters a 3rd time through the order. I don't remember a hit on any of the third times through the order. One major difference is that Sale has a changeup he throws 10-20% of the time. Pitch usage by Sale in 2019 vs. Houck in 2020: Sale: Sl, 38.41%; 4sm, 36.01%; Ch, 15.31%; 2sm/sk, 10.27% Houck: 4sm, 35.47%; Sl, 35.47%; 2sm/sk, 26.79%; spl, 2.26% So he's lacking that fourth look to give hitters that Sale does, even if it's just a show-me pitch. Also what manfred said about their respective velocities, although I think Houck's been higher than that, more 94-95 early then dropping to 91-93. His velo was down against NYY overall, fwiw. Here's Houck the third time through the order: 9/15: Dickerson 3Ugo 9/20: Lemahieu BB, Voit 2B, Hicks 4-3go 9/25: Acuna 5-4-3 gidp, /inning break/, Freeman BB, Ozuna foul P3, d'Arnaud K, Albies P5 So, not a ton to go on here. 1 for 7 with a double and 2 walks. .142/.333/.286. But it's such a SSS that I don't think that tells us much.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 28, 2020 19:05:15 GMT -5
Generic question. Houck's motion is almost a mirror image of Chris Sale's motion. Does anyone think batters get any advantage the second time they see Chris Sale ? I might be wrong here but not far wrong. I think he's faced 64 batters in three games. That means he's faced 10 batters a 3rd time through the order. I don't remember a hit on any of the third times through the order. One major difference is that Sale has a changeup he throws 10-20% of the time. Pitch usage by Sale in 2019 vs. Houck in 2020: Sale: Sl, 38.41%; 4sm, 36.01%; Ch, 15.31%; 2sm/sk, 10.27% Houck: 4sm, 35.47%; Sl, 35.47%; 2sm/sk, 26.79%; spl, 2.26% So he's lacking that fourth look to give hitters that Sale does, even if it's just a show-me pitch. Also what manfred said about their respective velocities, although I think Houck's been higher than that, more 94-95 early then dropping to 91-93. His velo was down against NYY overall, fwiw. Here's Houck the third time through the order: 9/15: Dickerson 3Ugo 9/20: Lemahieu BB, Voit 2B, Hicks 4-3go 9/25: Acuna 5-4-3 gidp, /inning break/, Freeman BB, Ozuna foul P3, d'Arnaud K, Albies P5 So, not a ton to go on here. 1 for 7 with a double and 2 walks. .142/.333/.286. But it's such a SSS that I don't think that tells us much. He actually got hit reasonably hard after 50 pitches, so there's a fatigue confound as well. There always is. You can separate them -- I did it once for Casey Fossum -- but it takes a few years of data.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 28, 2020 19:57:26 GMT -5
For reference I wasn't comping Houck to Sale, only used Sale in terms of mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 29, 2020 5:07:40 GMT -5
He was up for 12 days, so 32 2021 days offsets it. My point can probably be made more broadly. I think Houck probably is in the MLB rotation for a significant amount of time next year. I think he spends some time in Worcester at some point if there are 5 other effective starters in Boston. It might be opening day, it might be later in the season. With that tone they might be able to get a year back and can at least manage his innings without taxing the MLB bullpen. May or may not be opening day and it probably depends on whether Pivetta is effective. If you have healthy and effective ERod, Eovaldi, Pérez, acquisition, and Pivetta, I think it's not a bad thing to option Houck and have one of the best #6 starters in baseball. Now, if he comes into camp next year and looks dominant, like he might be your damn ace, then yeah, don't send him down. But if he looks like he's even only a marginal upgrade over your 5th-best option, I think you keep as much flexibility as possible. If he spent 32 days in the minors, he would have 185 service days not 171. He would need to spend 46 days in Woosta to avoid a year service time. I doubt they would do that if he was pitching well. They might send him there for a short time but I think the year service time savings are unlikely unless his pitching digresses substantially.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Sept 29, 2020 10:46:34 GMT -5
So decisions to be made on how to limit two starting pitchers innings. It will be hard not to start and keep pitching Houck if he continues to throw this way. The Sox could try just keeping him to 5 or 6 innings a start and giving the occasional extra day of rest. Would they consider 150 innings too many?
For Erod, I wonder if they will consider bringing him along slowly with an eye toward him joining the rotation sometime in May. If they keep Pivetta in the rotation and add at least one free agent starting pitcher as we expect, there wouldn't be a need for Erod to start in April.
For Sale, him starting sometime around June could really be a blessing the way he has worn down after August in the past. If everything goes well, his 5th month of pitching could be in the playoffs in October. Lots of reason for optimism next year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 10, 2020 11:57:11 GMT -5
How good were the hitters Houck faced?
I grabbed every hitter's season performance against each of his three pitches, and adjusted them for what the whole league did.
(The league had a wFA/C of 0.08, a wSI/C of -.02, and a wSL/C of -.53. Which is to say, 4-seamers were hit .08 runs per 100 pitchers better than average, but sliders were hit -.53 runs below average. In a separate study of pitchers 2015-2020 I came up with -.54 for the latter figure, so these are likely very reliable).
Houck's hitters were:
+1.08 runs/100 pitches against the FA (he threw 98)
+0.70 against the sinker (he threw 65)
+0.16 against the slider (he threw 94)
Overall, they were 0.68 against the three pitches.
[see phil's quote of this for the error made here!]
Houck had a 1.85 wFA/C, but that was really a 2.93 when you factor in his hitters. He had a 1.99 wSI/C, but that was 2.69 against average hitters. The slider goes from 4.12 to 4.28.
Now, these include his BABIP luck. But it gives you a better idea of the relative effectiveness of his pitches.
I'm going to try to figure out how to take out the BABIP luck next. Whether or not I can do that, I want to get a sense of where he would rank in MLB on the three pitches.
|
|
|