Joe Kelly is 14-0 with a 3.82 ERA since Aug. 1, 2015. This matches him with the longest Red Sox win streak in modern history with Clemens' historic 1986 run.
All he does is win.Joe Kelly is 14-0 with a 3.82 ERA since Aug. 1, 2015. This matches him with the longest Red Sox win streak in modern history with Clemens' historic 1986 run.
Steamer was also a guy who was rumoured to be more effective the more he pitched and he hadn't pitched in 3 days before game 6. Fun fact: he pitched five times in the '86 WS and didn't give up a run or an earned run.I thought that The Steamer had a year when he was 14-0. Looking at his baseball-reference page, I found out some interesting things:
I think for many of us, our memory of him was the fateful Game 6 in 86, but he was a very useful player for most of his career.
- It was 1978 that I was thinking of. He went 15-2, with 10 saves and a 2.60 ERA (ERA+ of 160). But his longest winning streak was 11 games.
- He also had 8 saves during that streak. Not a single one of those saves was of the "Tony LaRussa Clean 9th Inning" type.
- He twice finished 7th for Cy Young (78 and 82).
- He received MVP votes three times (78, 82, and 83).
- Two time All-Star (79 & 83)
- Career ERA+ was 118
- Career 115-97 with 132 saves
I'm not sure I buy that.All he does is win.
Seriously, I wonder why Farrell seems to have so little faith in him. I thought at the end of the year last year he really showed something. But even with a ton of guys out, he seems like Farrell's last option.
I do recall that rumor. Something about the sinker would sink more when he was tired.Steamer was also a guy who was rumoured to be more effective the more he pitched and he hadn't pitched in 3 days before game 6. Fun fact: he pitched five times in the '86 WS and didn't give up a run or an earned run.
The TV guys at the time talked about it like it was an accepted fact.I do recall that rumor. Something about the sinker would sink more when he was tired.
It was a simpler time.The TV guys at the time talked about it like it was an accepted fact.
Derek Lowe, for one, didn't buy it.The TV guys at the time talked about it like it was an accepted fact.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/qa-derek-lowe-on-game-7-of-the-2004-alcs/DL: Did pitching on two days of rest help your sinker?
Lowe: I don’t believe in that. I would much rather pitch at full strength. You still need your legs under you, and you still need your arm in the right arm slot. If you get too tired, your ball doesn’t move anymore. I promise you. They should do that on the show Myth Busters, because it’s not true.
To be fair, as I recall, the context was around his usage as a reliever. He felt like he was more effective if he was used a lot out of the bullpen. When he hadn't worked in a few days, he felt "too strong".Derek Lowe, for one, didn't buy it.
In the 12 inning game, Kelly was their 5th reliever used, after Barnes, Kimbrel, Hembree, and Scott. If he was their "relief ace", he wouldn't have been 5th in line.I'm not sure I buy that.
Kelly has made five appearances. Three of them were either a tie (2) or within one run (1, -1). It includes two innings in the 12 inning game, two in the blowout loss to the O's where he came in with the game relatively close (-4) and 2.2 in the Pomeranz five inning ten K game. He's had two four day breaks, once with the flu and once after the 44 pitch outing in the O's blowout.
I don't think that's indicative of being Farrell's last option. I think that's indicative of being the relief ace we've been wanting for 20 years. Need a guy to pitch multiple mid-to -late innings, that can come in with men on base, and who can be relied upon to keep the game close most of the time? That's what Joe Kelly has done so far.
That 10 inning CG shutout I saw him pitch in KC in '79 might have been part of that lore. He had good stuff late that day.I do recall that rumor. Something about the sinker would sink more when he was tired.
Not sure I buy that. Sale pitched seven. Barnes is clearly the 8th inning guy, and at home, the closer pitches the ninth in tie games. They went matchups for the tenth, then went to Kelly in the 11th. I guess you could argue that a true relief ace would have been used in regulation, but we know that's never going to happen when you have established 8th and 9th inning guys, and it's been made pretty clear by usage since that Farrell considers Barnes the 8th inning guy.In the 12 inning game, Kelly was their 5th reliever used, after Barnes, Kimbrel, Hembree, and Scott. If he was their "relief ace", he wouldn't have been 5th in line.
The inning he pitched in the 8-1 game was his first appearance in four days and came after he was sick and while other folks were sick. I'm not sure how being one of the relatively few competent pitchers who weren't puking regularly makes him not a relief ace.He pitched an inning in a blowout win, and two in a blowout loss. Hardly the times to use a "relief ace".
Sounds like a relief ace outing to me. The game is close, the starter clearly struggling, and with runners on base it could very quickly get unclose.And then he came in as the middle reliever to pick up Pomeranz, in the 5th inning, Sox down a run, and went 2.2 innings in that one.
As you may or may not recall,Kelly had the proverbial flu like symptoms so I'm sure Farrell was trying to stay away from him entirely.So in only one of his five appearances (on April 7) did he make an appearance that could remotely be considered in a spot where a "relief ace" would have pitched. But even THEN, he really wasn't.
The 8th inning began with the Sox up 5-4. Hembree came in to start the 8th, and he proceeded to strike out two and then walk two. I'm sure the plan was for Hembree to get through the 8th unscathed, but those two walks did him in. In comes Scott to face Mahtook, who promptly doubled in a run. Then, and only then, did Farrell bring in Kelly, who promptly walked two guys to force in a run before getting out of the inning. If Hembree or Scott did their jobs, Kelly never sees the mound that day.
You clearly have a different definition of relief ace than I do because the April 16 game is exactly how a relief ace is going to be used. The game is on the line, but it's not the late innings. I'd argue that in extras with your regular late game relievers exhausted is also right in the relief ace wheelhouse, as is the Wright game.So in precisely ZERO of these appearances was Kelly treated like a "relief ace".
You mean other than pitch well?What has he done this year to be treated like a relief ace especially when given the other options?
Three.So the Sox have had many spots where a "relief ace" should have been used, if Farrell was thinking along those lines. And in only *one* of those spots could we remotely suggest that Kelly was the guy used in that role.
So I grant that it's possible that you and I are seeing this differently, even in terms of what a relief ace is. I'm trying to use your criteria (as best as I can), and I still only see one instance where it could even be argued that Kelly was used in that role.
The thing is, I think he SHOULD be used in that role. He seems to be pitching very well. But it doesn't appear that Farrell is thinking of him that way. He seems like the quintessential...... middle reliever.
That ship has sailed and you don't make that decision after 8 innings.Should Kelly be given another shot as a starter or is that a lost cause?
I guess you and I have a difference of opinion as to what situation a "relief ace" would have been brought in then. When you're down 4 runs in the 7th inning in a non-must-win game, I don't see that as a time to bring in your "relief ace". He was neither preserving a lead nor entering a close game. Four runs in the 7th is classic mop up duty. Maybe if they were UP four runs....*maybe*.Three.
Twelve inning game. The game Wright barfed up, and the other one I mentioned earlier that I don't feel like looking up again.