So have you changed the channel yet?I love rookie call ups. Always must watch TV!
Could have been Swihart, too. The pitch selection, anyway. Beeks also only got 8 swinging strikes on 88 pitches. He wasn't fooling anyone.He also turned it around a bit when he started throwing more offspsed stuff, which helped his fastball. It seemed that way anyway. I haven't looked at any charts.
Could have been nerves. "Lemme stick with the fastball so I don't hang a curve...."
I have no idea whether that played into it at all, but I was really surprised when I turned the game on (already 5-1 in the 2nd...) and saw that Swihart was catching. I realize the two have some familiarity from AAA last year, but it seems like a really odd time to have Swihart catch his first game of the year. Now, Johnson and Velazquez pitched really well after Beeks, who settled in a bit himself. So, I think you'd be hard pressed to support a claim that it was Swihart's "fault." Nonetheless, it struck me as a strange decision.Could have been Swihart, too. The pitch selection, anyway. Beeks also only got 8 swinging strikes on 88 pitches. He wasn't fooling anyone.
The timing doesn't seem that odd to me. There had been talk that Cora wanted to give Swihart a start over the weekend anyway (my guess is to catch Price) so using him last night with Beeks rather than breaking the rhythm of another battery seems as good an opportunity as any to let him knock some rust off. I didn't see anything that would throw out the idea of him getting more starts down the road.I have no idea whether that played into it at all, but I was really surprised when I turned the game on (already 5-1 in the 2nd...) and saw that Swihart was catching. I realize the two have some familiarity from AAA last year, but it seems like a really odd time to have Swihart catch his first game of the year. Now, Johnson and Velazquez pitched really well after Beeks, who settled in a bit himself. So, I think you'd be hard pressed to support a claim that it was Swihart's "fault." Nonetheless, it struck me as a strange decision.
That's a 9.1% swinging strike rate, below the MLB average of 10.7%, but not eyebrow-raisingly bad. It's the same as Price's, only 0.1% worse than Porcello's, and would put him in about the 30th percentile among starting pitchers with 30 or more IP so far this year.Could have been Swihart, too. The pitch selection, anyway. Beeks also only got 8 swinging strikes on 88 pitches. He wasn't fooling anyone.
Not true from what i saw of the first 3 inningsI was listening on the radio but it sounded like a few times the umpire was squeezing him and not giving him anything close?
Sure, but qualitatively to my eye, this number includes more than a usual amount of young hitters “swinging for the downs” against him, and I would expect that number to go way down from 9.1% as more teams build their video scouting files.That's a 9.1% swinging strike rate, below the MLB average of 10.7%, but not eyebrow-raisingly bad. It's the same as Price's, only 0.1% worse than Porcello's, and would put him in about the 30th percentile among starting pitchers with 30 or more IP so far this year.
I couldn’t agree more. He wasn’t as bad as that 5 run first, but he in no way moved up the pecking order based on his stuff or the results.Were the expectations really that Beeks would show something special last night and thus earn more starts? Because I saw it as a one-off spot start to preserve the rest schedule of the rotation and nothing more. He's already on the 40-man, he's stretched out, he was more or less on the right schedule, and they didn't want to push anyone up to fill Pomeranz's turn. An opportunity of convenience more than anything else. Had he started on Monday night before Pomeranz went on the DL, they'd have used Velazquez/Johnson or they'd have pushed everyone up a day.
Regardless of how well or poorly he did last night, Beeks shouldn't be back to make another start unless there is a double header type situation or there are a bunch of injuries. He was the #8 guy going in, he remains the #8 guy going forward.
And without that raw stuff, Beeks appears to need to more time in AAA learning how to pitch inside effectively, before he’s a legitimate MLB option that’s higher on the depth chart than #8.
Isn't Beeks the #9 starter with Wright, Velazquez, and Johnson being 6, 7, and 8?He was the #8 guy going in, he remains the #8 guy going forward.
Per broadcast last night Cora said he didn't want Vaz sitting three straight days (Fri - Sun) with Leon catching Fri and Sun...so he slotted Swihart in Thursday as opposed to Saturday.The timing doesn't seem that odd to me. There had been talk that Cora wanted to give Swihart a start over the weekend anyway (my guess is to catch Price) so using him last night with Beeks rather than breaking the rhythm of another battery seems as good an opportunity as any to let him knock some rust off. I didn't see anything that would throw out the idea of him getting more starts down the road.
I think we're well into the phase of getting Swihart more playing time in general to see what he can do with regular work. He rotted on the bench for the first 6-8 weeks of the season, now he'll get his chance whether it's to showcase for a trade or to see if he can be a solid contributor to the team.
I wasn’t considering Pom, because he’s on the DL and not presently an option at all.Isn't Beeks the #9 starter with Wright, Velazquez, and Johnson being 6, 7, and 8?
Isn't that the whole point of this list? There is no such thing as #6, 7, 8, 9 when #1-#5 are healthyI wasn’t considering Pom, because he’s on the DL and not presently an option at all.
Sure there is. Sometimes you have a double-header or need a spot-start whether it’s because of a lingering pain of bereavement leave or other issue you can’t plan around. Ideally you’d use the #6 guy, but that’s not always possible.Isn't that the whole point of this list? There is no such thing as #6, 7, 8, 9 when #1-#5 are healthy
Funny, I wasn't counting Johnson because he's been in the bullpen since his one start back in the first week of the season. Given their workloads, he and Velazquez basically comprise a single starter at this point.I wasn’t considering Pom, because he’s on the DL and not presently an option at all.
Semantics. I tend to think of the numbers as a depth chart, lot a list of who is currently starting. If your #5 is temporarily hurt, then #6 is next in line. I'd only reassign numbers if a starter is out for the season or "permanently" reassigned to the pen. To Red(s)' point, assigning numbers to Johnson and Velazquez is tricky as they aren't stretched out right now. I haven't heard they've been "permanently" reassigned to the pen, but depending on needs maybe Beeks is ahead of Johnson and/or Velazquez.Isn't that the whole point of this list? There is no such thing as #6, 7, 8, 9 when #1-#5 are healthy
This is what they should have done last night. You may have been able to get 4 innings out of one and 3 innings out of another, and if you need a long-man over the next couple days you can still use Workman for 3 as well. If it didn't work, and you ended up having to burn all three of Workman, Velazquez, and Johnson for multiple innings, you send Workman back down and call up Poyner for long relief. No reason to start Beeks.Funny, I wasn't counting Johnson because he's been in the bullpen since his one start back in the first week of the season. Given their workloads, he and Velazquez basically comprise a single starter at this point.
This is what they should have done last night. You may have been able to get 4 innings out of one and 3 innings out of another, and if you need a long-man over the next couple days you can still use Workman for 3 as well. If it didn't work, and you ended up having to burn all three of Workman, Velazquez, and Johnson for multiple innings, you send Workman back down and call up Poyner for long relief. No reason to start Beeks.
I'm saving that picture and don't think I won't use it.View attachment 21398
I mean, seriously, there was no reason not to start Beeks. He's a 24-year-old who's been very good for a year-plus now and most recently has been dominating Triple-A hitters. That's exactly the kind of guy you give a midseason spot start to. The fact that he shit the bed for his first inning is not shocking, but neither was it at all inevitable; those are the risks you take over the course of a season.