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.
2021 Spring Training
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 30, 2021 11:00:12 GMT -5
So the diagnosis on Barnes is probably not actually verbal gobbledegook but means something, apparently that he did have some of the virus in him, but it was non-infectious. So, not a false positive, not a negative. (I am not a scientist, just a philologist googling) "Biologists can tell if the virus is infectious by injecting it into cells (culture cells). If these cells are not affected by the virus and the virus does not reproduce in them, then the PCR test found a virus that is no longer active. The meaning is that the PCR positive is a non-infectious positive." www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean/He apparently took a number of tests after his positive and all came back negative as well? I don't know - we're speculating here.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 30, 2021 11:02:21 GMT -5
Why do people think only the good Houck is going to show up if he pitches in Boston? Isn't it more likely that the guy we saw in the last game will continue to Jekyll-Hyde with the guy who gave up 10 walks in six innings? I have great hope for him, but I think he requires patience. Yes, exactly. His control is spotty, to be kind. He's going to have those games where he lasts 2 innings because he walked 5 guys. He'll have flashes of dominance, too. I think he's better served working on his control issues at AAA. Honestly I think the Sox will get bigger contributions from Whitlock and Seabold as far as the rotation is concerned. Those two guys are strike throwers. Houck has a higher ceiling if he can conquer his control issues, but you just never know if he will or won't. At worst, I think he can be an effective high leverage reliever, but to make it as a starter he has to be a lot more consistent throwing strikes. I don’t think these positions are mutually exclusive. I see Houck as a work in progress. BUT... I think even as a Jekyll’n’Hyde, he’s better than a handful of guys who will make the pen. AND I think he can get regular enough work in Boston to continue to develop — so I don’t know that sending him down is necessary for him to advance to the next step. Sure, there could be days he comes in and can’t find the plate. But even factoring those days in, I think he is better now than Valdez, Brice, Brasier, and even Taylor (tho the last being lefty is a different thing). In fact, he’s pretty similar to Darwinzon: electric and occasionally infuriating.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 30, 2021 11:11:13 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. His control is spotty, to be kind. He's going to have those games where he lasts 2 innings because he walked 5 guys. He'll have flashes of dominance, too. I think he's better served working on his control issues at AAA. Honestly I think the Sox will get bigger contributions from Whitlock and Seabold as far as the rotation is concerned. Those two guys are strike throwers. Houck has a higher ceiling if he can conquer his control issues, but you just never know if he will or won't. At worst, I think he can be an effective high leverage reliever, but to make it as a starter he has to be a lot more consistent throwing strikes. I don’t think these positions are mutually exclusive. I see Houck as a work in progress. BUT... I think even as a Jekyll’n’Hyde, he’s better than a handful of guys who will make the pen. AND I think he can get regular enough work in Boston to continue to develop — so I don’t know that sending him down is necessary for him to advance to the next step. Sure, there could be days he comes in and can’t find the plate. But even factoring those days in, I think he is better now than Valdez, Brice, Brasier, and even Taylor (tho the last being lefty is a different thing). In fact, he’s pretty similar to Darwinzon: electric and occasionally infuriating. I think sending him down is necessary to keep him stretched out though, and it provides a lower-risk environment for him to work on developing the split and command of the four-seam without getting punished for it at the MLB level. Remember, in MLB games last year that didn't matter at all he barely threw the splitter. Games this spring matter more - he's not going to throw the work-in-progress pitch more. If it's May and there are starters really, really struggling, then yeah, it might be different, but if this week told us anything it's that they're definitely going to be comfortable going to him when needed and that there is value keeping him stretched out. They already have two long guys in Andriese and Whitlock. I'm skeptical they can keep a third reliever stretched out. I mean, if you (not manfred specifically, just generally) weren't clamoring for him to be up when he walked 5 guys in his first outing that lasted 0.2 IP, or walked 4 and hit a guy in his 2.2 IP third outing, you shouldn't be now. He is both of those pitchers. Hell, it's not like he even outpitched Pivetta or Perez this spring, right? I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 30, 2021 11:22:48 GMT -5
I don’t think these positions are mutually exclusive. I see Houck as a work in progress. BUT... I think even as a Jekyll’n’Hyde, he’s better than a handful of guys who will make the pen. AND I think he can get regular enough work in Boston to continue to develop — so I don’t know that sending him down is necessary for him to advance to the next step. Sure, there could be days he comes in and can’t find the plate. But even factoring those days in, I think he is better now than Valdez, Brice, Brasier, and even Taylor (tho the last being lefty is a different thing). In fact, he’s pretty similar to Darwinzon: electric and occasionally infuriating. I think sending him down is necessary to keep him stretched out though, and it provides a lower-risk environment for him to work on developing the split and command of the four-seam without getting punished for it at the MLB level. Remember, in MLB games last year that didn't matter at all he barely threw the splitter. Games this spring matter more - he's not going to throw the work-in-progress pitch more. If it's May and there are starters really, really struggling, then yeah, it might be different, but if this week told us anything it's that they're definitely going to be comfortable going to him when needed and that there is value keeping him stretched out. They already have two long guys in Andriese and Whitlock. I'm skeptical they can keep a third reliever stretched out. I mean, if you (not manfred specifically, just generally) weren't clamoring for him to be up when he walked 5 guys in his first outing that lasted 0.2 IP, or walked 4 and hit a guy in his 2.2 IP third outing, you shouldn't be now. He is both of those pitchers. Hell, it's not like he even outpitched Pivetta or Perez this spring, right? I don't get it. I totally get that, and I’m not adding sending Houck down to my Festivus airing of grievances. But.... the mantra around here is “it is spring,” so I’m not so shaken by early control issues if they are on a proper trajectory, just as I’m not ready to say anyone who is not performing now won’t straighten out. And I don’t think the question is has he outperformed Pivetta and Perez so much as where is he relative to Valdez or even Andriese. I guess I find it impossible to make the case that the staff without him is better than it is with him. If fielding the best team now is the goal, sending him down doesn’t reach that goal. But I get that there are other matters beyond that immediacy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 30, 2021 11:51:41 GMT -5
I don't think it's nearly as clear that he's better than Pivetta right now, and don't see why it's not better for the team going forward to attempt to pursue both Pivetta AND Houck becoming potential members of the rotation. Even if I agreed, for the sake of argument, that Houck is a slight upgrade now, why bump Pivetta to the bullpen now? This is not the season in which they should be selling out for wins in April for that.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 30, 2021 11:57:32 GMT -5
I don’t think these positions are mutually exclusive. I see Houck as a work in progress. BUT... I think even as a Jekyll’n’Hyde, he’s better than a handful of guys who will make the pen. AND I think he can get regular enough work in Boston to continue to develop — so I don’t know that sending him down is necessary for him to advance to the next step. Sure, there could be days he comes in and can’t find the plate. But even factoring those days in, I think he is better now than Valdez, Brice, Brasier, and even Taylor (tho the last being lefty is a different thing). In fact, he’s pretty similar to Darwinzon: electric and occasionally infuriating. I think sending him down is necessary to keep him stretched out though, and it provides a lower-risk environment for him to work on developing the split and command of the four-seam without getting punished for it at the MLB level. Remember, in MLB games last year that didn't matter at all he barely threw the splitter. Games this spring matter more - he's not going to throw the work-in-progress pitch more. If it's May and there are starters really, really struggling, then yeah, it might be different, but if this week told us anything it's that they're definitely going to be comfortable going to him when needed and that there is value keeping him stretched out. They already have two long guys in Andriese and Whitlock. I'm skeptical they can keep a third reliever stretched out. I mean, if you (not manfred specifically, just generally) weren't clamoring for him to be up when he walked 5 guys in his first outing that lasted 0.2 IP, or walked 4 and hit a guy in his 2.2 IP third outing, you shouldn't be now. He is both of those pitchers. Hell, it's not like he even outpitched Pivetta or Perez this spring, right? I don't get it. Agreed, Chris, IMO Houck has MUCH more value to the Red Sox as a starter. Buchholz first came up in 2007 (14 years ago). Have the Red Sox developed a starter since (at least who was effective in multiple years)? E-Rod was acquired in a trade... I would want to see Houck in the rotation in AAA or if necessary (because of injuries to other starters) in Boston! Even if his ceiling is a 4th starter (not saying it is), there is more value to the Red Sox than in the pen.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 30, 2021 11:59:19 GMT -5
I don't think it's nearly as clear that he's better than Pivetta right now, and don't see why it's not better for the team going forward to attempt to pursue both Pivetta AND Houck becoming potential members of the rotation. Even if I agreed, for the sake of argument, that Houck is a slight upgrade now, why bump Pivetta to the bullpen now? This is not the season in which they should be selling out for wins in April for that. I never argued for bumping Pivetta. He stays as is. Houck would be in the pen, but given the questions lingering with ERod, with pitch counts and Richards, with Eovaldi’s success the 2nd time through an order etc., it seems reasonable to assume you could get Houck 2-3 inning appearances out of the pen pretty regularly. The upgrade isn’t over Pivetta, it is over the guys who are currently projected to come in in the 5th or 6th inning. Add: anyway, as I’ve said, I have no beef with sending him down and stretching him. A totally reasonable action. Seems like a “good problem” instance.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 30, 2021 11:59:36 GMT -5
I read that the Red Sox are looking into signing Hector Rondon per this article: www.masslive.com/redsox/2021/03/boston-red-sox-have-had-talks-with-hector-rondon-veteran-reliever-opted-out-of-phillies-deal-last-week.htmlI think he could be an upgrade to Valdez who I assume would be sent down. He wasn't good last year or in spring training, but at least he has a history of throwing strikes which the pen could use. He is homer prone, but he has had some good seasons and could help the pen. I was hoping for Cishek but it looks like he's going elsewhere. I like Tony Watson but they're not going to bump Hernandez or Taylor, so I don't think it happens. They signed Tyler Olson because they could stash him at AAA.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 30, 2021 12:15:07 GMT -5
I read that the Red Sox are looking into signing Hector Rondon per this article: www.masslive.com/redsox/2021/03/boston-red-sox-have-had-talks-with-hector-rondon-veteran-reliever-opted-out-of-phillies-deal-last-week.htmlI think he could be an upgrade to Valdez who I assume would be sent down. He wasn't good last year or in spring training, but at least he has a history of throwing strikes which the pen could use. He is homer prone, but he has had some good seasons and could help the pen. I was hoping for Cishek but it looks like he's going elsewhere. I like Tony Watson but they're not going to bump Hernandez or Taylor, so I don't think it happens. They signed Tyler Olson because they could stash him at AAA. The Red Sox have very little left handed bullpen depth. I have been waiting all off season for the RS to address this. Glad they finally have added some.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Mar 30, 2021 12:40:54 GMT -5
Someone explain to me why Houck is described as having only two pitches (FB and Slider) while Chris Sale's two seam FB is described as a sinker? This particularly odd as it seems to me (am I seeing things?) that Houck's two seam FB (his sinker) has more movement than Sale's. With all due respect to Houck, who I like, I think it's because Sale's four-seamer is good? Houck has four pitches (he also can throw a splitter), but basically two that can get major league hitters out and two others that he can throw sometimes to keep guys off-balance if he's working as a starter. So Houck's sinking fastball is colloquially his fastball whereas Sale's is called a sinker to differentiate it. EDIT: Sinker/slider guys who didn't throw a traditional four-seamer were not that rare even 15 years ago, and generally those were called sinkers, and "two-seamer" has become the much more common term. I don't disagree except that my impression is people are saying Houck is strictly a FB and Slider pitcher and not distinguishing between the 4 and 2 seam FBs. Maybe I'm mistaken but it sure seems to me the consensus is his 2 seam isn't a sinker and Sale's is.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 30, 2021 13:11:57 GMT -5
I don't think it's nearly as clear that he's better than Pivetta right now, and don't see why it's not better for the team going forward to attempt to pursue both Pivetta AND Houck becoming potential members of the rotation. Even if I agreed, for the sake of argument, that Houck is a slight upgrade now, why bump Pivetta to the bullpen now? This is not the season in which they should be selling out for wins in April for that. There's no projecting Houck right now because we don't know the good / bad game ratio. So I'm on board with the current roster, largely because he can stay stretched out at the ATS, and he will likely be needed sooner than later. It's rare to keep all 5 of your starters healthy for long stretches.
Now, once they do need him, if he proves to be too good to send back down, and everyone becomes healthy ... then you figure out who goes to the pen (or even traded). But there's a long history of teams with the "problem" of "too much pitching depth" being resolved by discovering that "too much" was actually "thankfully, enough."
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 30, 2021 13:30:09 GMT -5
With all due respect to Houck, who I like, I think it's because Sale's four-seamer is good? Houck has four pitches (he also can throw a splitter), but basically two that can get major league hitters out and two others that he can throw sometimes to keep guys off-balance if he's working as a starter. So Houck's sinking fastball is colloquially his fastball whereas Sale's is called a sinker to differentiate it. EDIT: Sinker/slider guys who didn't throw a traditional four-seamer were not that rare even 15 years ago, and generally those were called sinkers, and "two-seamer" has become the much more common term. I don't disagree except that my impression is people are saying Houck is strictly a FB and Slider pitcher and not distinguishing between the 4 and 2 seam FBs. Maybe I'm mistaken but it sure seems to me the consensus is his 2 seam isn't a sinker and Sale's is. All of the pitch-tracking metrics have stopped discriminating between a "two-seam fastball" and a "sinker"; they are synonyms now. Whatever difference there supposedly was (velocity relative to 4-seamer, I think) was just a straight continuum, as opposed to, say slider and curve, where the area in between, the "slurve," is way less populated ... ditto for the "slutter" that was Papebon's breaking pitch and a few other guys.
Houck has more sink on his sinker than just about anybody, and a bigger difference in armside run from his 4-seamer than just about anybody. His sinker is almost a really hard changeup. So the general point here, that he's already a 3-pitch pitcher, is spot on. He gets away with a 4-seamer that's probably a grade 45 now (from 40 with the velo increase) because he can mix it up with the sinker. They are close enough to be confused but different enough that if you're looking for one and get the other, it's very hard to adjust. Lumping them together as one pitch therefore misses the point.
In contrast, most guys who have both pitches, I believe, use them for different hitters and/or situations. You throw the 4-seamer up in the zone to guys who will chase it, you throw the sinker to a guy you think will hit into a GDP when you need it. It's two variants of one pitch that you can use to match the movement on the pitch -- rise versus run -- to the circumstances.
A great study to test this impression would be to see how often both fastballs are thrown to the same hitter in the same PA, or even in the same game, by different pitchers. Somebody else will have to do that because the data collection seems beyond me right now! But maybe someday I'll be in a position to hire a programming whiz.
|
|
kevfc89
Veteran
Posts: 5,337
Member is Online
|
Post by kevfc89 on Mar 30, 2021 14:23:57 GMT -5
Nice opposite field fly ball double first time up, pulled home run to deep right field next time up. Really impressed with Duran this spring, probably seen more swing and miss than you'd want, but he's consistently made hard contact throughout.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 30, 2021 20:18:45 GMT -5
I think sending him down is necessary to keep him stretched out though, and it provides a lower-risk environment for him to work on developing the split and command of the four-seam without getting punished for it at the MLB level. Remember, in MLB games last year that didn't matter at all he barely threw the splitter. Games this spring matter more - he's not going to throw the work-in-progress pitch more. If it's May and there are starters really, really struggling, then yeah, it might be different, but if this week told us anything it's that they're definitely going to be comfortable going to him when needed and that there is value keeping him stretched out. They already have two long guys in Andriese and Whitlock. I'm skeptical they can keep a third reliever stretched out. I mean, if you (not manfred specifically, just generally) weren't clamoring for him to be up when he walked 5 guys in his first outing that lasted 0.2 IP, or walked 4 and hit a guy in his 2.2 IP third outing, you shouldn't be now. He is both of those pitchers. Hell, it's not like he even outpitched Pivetta or Perez this spring, right? I don't get it. I totally get that, and I’m not adding sending Houck down to my Festivus airing of grievances. But.... the mantra around here is “it is spring,” so I’m not so shaken by early control issues if they are on a proper trajectory, just as I’m not ready to say anyone who is not performing now won’t straighten out. And I don’t think the question is has he outperformed Pivetta and Perez so much as where is he relative to Valdez or even Andriese. I guess I find it impossible to make the case that the staff without him is better than it is with him. If fielding the best team now is the goal, sending him down doesn’t reach that goal. But I get that there are other matters beyond that immediacy. I'd like to see him get the chance also, but to start and it probably wasn't going to happen unless someone got hurt among the 5 everyone in the Sox FO had pencilled in the moment Martin Perez resigned. For keeping him on the 26th man as a reliever? I think he's better than brice, valdez, brewer, but who gets called up to start when/if they need a starter? With Mata down, the choices are sickening as it stands should Houck be sent back to relieving and remember Seabold has only thrown 7 games at AA level, I doubt he gets a sniff of an MLB roster until the end of the year, if then. Houck is too important right now as the 6th starter to fool with is my 2c.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Mar 30, 2021 20:28:07 GMT -5
I totally get that, and I’m not adding sending Houck down to my Festivus airing of grievances. But.... the mantra around here is “it is spring,” so I’m not so shaken by early control issues if they are on a proper trajectory, just as I’m not ready to say anyone who is not performing now won’t straighten out. And I don’t think the question is has he outperformed Pivetta and Perez so much as where is he relative to Valdez or even Andriese. I guess I find it impossible to make the case that the staff without him is better than it is with him. If fielding the best team now is the goal, sending him down doesn’t reach that goal. But I get that there are other matters beyond that immediacy. I'd like to see him get the chance also, but to start and it probably wasn't going to happen unless someone got hurt among the 5 everyone in the Sox FO had pencilled in the moment Martin Perez resigned. For keeping him on the 26th man as a reliever? I think he's better than brice, valdez, brewer, but who gets called up to start when/if they need a starter? With Mata down, the choices are sickening as it stands should Houck be sent back to relieving and remember Seabold has only thrown 7 games at AA level, I doubt he gets a sniff of an MLB roster until the end of the year, if then. Houck is too important right now as the 6th starter to fool with is my 2c. Agreed, Houck is more valuable to the RS as a starter!!
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 31, 2021 8:34:03 GMT -5
I'm guessing Houck won't get enough innings to win the Cy.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Apr 1, 2021 12:15:02 GMT -5
I'm guessing Houck won't get enough innings to win the Cy. Will there be a single mlb pitcher get to 200 innings....i highly doubt it this year. After last year’s 60-70 inning max for most pitchers I would guess170-180 max for pitchers. MLB teams do not want to risk injury with that expensive an asset, and it seems good starting pitching is becoming more and more rare of a commodity.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 1, 2021 14:12:06 GMT -5
I'm guessing Houck won't get enough innings to win the Cy. Ha,ha,ha..... But if he did.....
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Apr 1, 2021 14:18:13 GMT -5
I'm guessing Houck won't get enough innings to win the Cy. Will there be a single mlb pitcher get to 200 innings....i highly doubt it this year. After last year’s 60-70 inning max for most pitchers I would guess170-180 max for pitchers. MLB teams do not want to risk injury with that expensive an asset, and it seems good starting pitching is becoming more and more rare of a commodity. I'd have to disagree, there will 200ip pitchers this year.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,791
|
Post by mobaz on Apr 1, 2021 15:11:18 GMT -5
There were 15/12/15 pitchers over the last 3 full seasons with over 200 IP. 2/5/4 with over 210 IP. We'll probably get 1 or 2 over 200, but I doubt we'll get 15.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Apr 1, 2021 15:45:29 GMT -5
Will there be a single mlb pitcher get to 200 innings....i highly doubt it this year. After last year’s 60-70 inning max for most pitchers I would guess170-180 max for pitchers. MLB teams do not want to risk injury with that expensive an asset, and it seems good starting pitching is becoming more and more rare of a commodity. I'd have to disagree, there will 200ip pitchers this year. It is a big jump from 70 innings to 200 even if a pitcher has done it before. GMs and managers may go with additional days off or 6 man rotations at different points in the year. Starters may only get 29 or 30 starts instead or 33 or 34. If I were an owner or GM I would not want to take any chances with my $25 million starter..... Even if a ace wants the ball 34 times so he can get his bonus for 200 innings he may not get the opportunity....
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Apr 2, 2021 5:47:17 GMT -5
There were 15/12/15 pitchers over the last 3 full seasons with over 200 IP. 2/5/4 with over 210 IP. We'll probably get 1 or 2 over 200, but I doubt we'll get 15. There is a better chance there is two on the same team. Then 2 in the whole league.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 2, 2021 7:00:20 GMT -5
There were 15/12/15 pitchers over the last 3 full seasons with over 200 IP. 2/5/4 with over 210 IP. We'll probably get 1 or 2 over 200, but I doubt we'll get 15. There is a better chance there is two on the same team. Then 2 in the whole league. This... This is mathematically impossible.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,987
Member is Online
|
Post by jimoh on Apr 2, 2021 7:57:13 GMT -5
Eck was wondering on the air how many pitchers will get the 162 IP (1 per game played) needed to qualify for the ERA title.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,791
|
Post by mobaz on Apr 2, 2021 8:24:13 GMT -5
There is a better chance there is two on the same team. Then 2 in the whole league. This... This is mathematically impossible. Look, another stats nerd trying to turn baseball into a math contest from his mother's basement!(Sorry, had to)
|
|
|