2022 COVID Impacts on the Team.
- Thread starter Rovin Romine
- Start date
I don't have time to look them up, but out of curiosity, how many inherited runners scored in those BP innings.
I kind of feel this way too. I know he probably provides more value as a starter, just guessing, but I’d almost prefer if we stretched him to pitch out of the pen more often and he became our modern day Goose Gossage or Rollie Fingers. I think you make a good point about the decreased overall workloads for starters these days as well.
In all fairness, I wouldn’t give him away because he should have some major value but I wouldn’t mind if we traded him either.
Well that, of course, is different than saying we should trade him away for a bag of Big League Chew.
I’m disappointed in anyone who has chosen not to get vaccinated, but am wondering how the team and organization has chosen to approach these issues? Is there any kind of coaxing to get players to get vaccinated, with the idea that there are team goals to accomplish, and doing everything possible to get an edge? Is there no pitch from Cora on getting it done to help the team, or is there guidance from the union on not making these things into big public issues? Primarily an issue for the teams that have to make more than a trip to Toronto, but mostly curious if there is guidance from the union on how this issue is to be broached with unvaccinated players.
You know damn well that was hyperbole and that Steve knows he'd fetch at least a decent return, he just doesn't really care a lot about said return. I'd like to see him gone too.
IMO it should've been the ultimatum from day 1.
Get jab or enjoy lovely Worcester Massachusetts for the year.
Of course it's hyperbole. Rather silly hyperbole, especially coming from a mod.
That really would be super duper short-sighted of them. I mean, look. The guy is going to be available to help the Red Sox out for the VAST majority of games this year. I'm sure they'd prefer he was vaccinated, obviously. But he's really really good, and obviously they prefer having him on the team, even considering the fact that he's unvaccinated and that makes him unavailable in Toronto. Pretty clearly they like having him potentially available for 153 games and can live with him being unavailable for those 9 (or 10 or whatever).
He wasn't posting as a mod, and I see 100 times worse than that every day around here. You know all this.
This kind of response is why I've limited my non-mod posting. What I feel about the Sox or any other subject has literally zero to do with my status as a mod.
Ok fair enough. I don't know if I see much worse than "they should trade Houck for a bag of gum" (in a non game thread), but YMMV, I guess.
I don't think it's being short sighted to have non-negotiables for your organization. You can't really do anything about Chris Sale because you pay him so much but these other guys? I would draw a line.
Ok. I'm glad Chaim isn't sending Houck to Worcester for the year because of his vaccination status. I'm personally glad he recognizes that Houck is a really good, really valuable young potential stud pitcher (who, additionally, costs almost nothing) who can help the team for years.
I don't know what the union's thoughts on the vaccine are, but my guess is they would have an issue with keeping someone in the minors or on some kind of restricted list over the refusal to get a vaccine.
*except for in Toronto*
You’re absolutely right but so are the people who aren’t going to let this go. It’s a huge issue and he’s a shitty teammate for creating it.
The Sox never had a lead in the first game in Toronto. They were down 2-0, then tied at at 2-2. (Yes, 2-2 would have been a good time to bring Whitlock in).
And while I love Whitlock, you can never assume a win if a different guy comes in. Sure, Whitlock is REALLY good, but he's not unhittable.
And for the record, I think Houck and Crawford are being idiots for not getting vaxxed.
That's, to me anyway, important to know when talking RP stats. Especially when stating what you did in your previous post.
Sure. But then you’d need to also know how other teams do in terms of allowing inherited runners to score in order for that stat to have any real value. Because let’s say that over those 7 games the Sox’ pen allowed 4 inherited runners to score. Is that bad? Is that good? Who knows unless we have data from across MLB to compare it to. ERA is something normal fans kind of have a handle on in terms of what’s good or not. Inherited runners? No idea.
That would be true if you were comparing the Sox pen to other pens, but you weren't. You just listed the pen stats without comparing them to others and saying that the pen wasn't that bad.
ERA is not a good stat for relievers because it's so volatile because of the small number of innings they pitch. Valdez and Diekman are two good examples.
You need to know if an inherited runner(s) scored as well. That won't show up in their ERA, but in their WHIP as a walk or hit.
That's less of an issue when you're talking about the bullpen in aggregate. The sample size is large and most of the inherited runners that scored were left by other relievers, so it will show up in your bullpen ERA numbers anyway.
Right I hear you. But how do you know if a bullpen allowing 4 inherited runners to score over a 7-game span is any good? We know that a 3.37 era is good because we have an overall sense of ERA, and we can compare it to other teams' bullpen ERAs. I literally have NO idea of allowing 4 inherited runners to score over a 7-game period is any good at all. The only way I really could know that is if I had a sense of what the league's norms are in this area.
Updating as we go:
Gone to the Covid-IL and Back:
Gone to the Covid-IL and Back:
Kevin Plawecki: April 18. (+ test) (vaccinated)
returned April 25.
Christian Vazquez: April 19. (+ test) (vaccinated)
returned April 20. (2 games missed)
Jonathan Arauz: April 19. (+ test) (vaccinated)
Alex Cora: April 21. (+ test) (vaccinated)
returned April 27.
Tanner Houck: April 25. (unvaccinated - cannot play in Canada.)
Cutter Crawford: April 25. (unvaccinated - cannot play in Canada.)
Active Callups (and Returns) due to Covid:
Connor Wong: April 18. (for Plawecki)
optioned April 25 to Worcester - as Plawecki returned.
Tyler Danish: April 19.
optioned April 24 to Worcester - Rich Hill returns from bereavement list.
(see below - immediately called up for Toronto 1 series.)
Rob Refsnyder: April 19.
Ronaldo Hernandez: April 19. (Rich Hill on bereavement list 4/19, this makes RH the second catcher)
optioned April 20 to Worcester, when Christian Vazquez returned.
John Schreiber: April 25.
Tyler Danish: April 25.
I hear what you're saying. But, even if most of the inherited runners that scored belonged to the pen and not the starters I still think it's useful in evaluating their performance to have that information, no matter who the runners belonged to. Looking at those stats without context, I see four good outings and three bad ones in those seven games, but nothing else.
You can look at it this way:
Our OPS+ is 78, for the third worst in baseball. And yet we have scored 65 runs. The average is 70 runs. Once again, we are simply not walking - we are second worst in baseball.
Our ERA+ is 107 is good for 15th - we're in a cluster with the Rays, Padres, Jays, Guardians, Astros. As far as allowing inherited runners to score - we're at 33%, and the league avearge is 32%.
Defensively, we're a top 10 team so far.
Given that Houck is a starter, they at least have the option to adjust the rotation so that he isn't scheduled to pitch in the next two series in Toronto, which are both 3 games. This gives them a chance to mitigate the damage. The next series vs the Jays has some off-days nearby (off, 3@CLE, 3@TOR, off), and the one after that is the second last of the season, during a stretch of 16 games in 16 days.
Except that players who can't play because they can't get into Canada literally do go on the restricted list.
Does anyone know if the Sox have chosen to award service time while the player is on the restricted list, my understanding is that is up to the team?
The question is can Houk continue to advance where he adds a third pitch and becomes an above average starter, or is he and his sidearm delivery Justin Masterson redux (and is that even the appropriate comparison in today's game, given the changes in pitcher/ batter environment)?
Edit: I'll add that Houk only through 90 innings between AAA & MLB last year, so he's still not really going to take on a full starting workload (except again in the reduced innings, 2-times through the order way MLB has been trending, but even then) and it would make a ton of sense to just manage his innings around series in Canada, which it looked like they would be doing, but locked into their prescribed roles against TB...
Last edited:
Only for those series. Some are suggesting it should be indefinite or until they get the vaccine. I think the MLBPA would take issue with that.
PSA: It's spelled Houck. Not Houke, not Houk. Houck, with a C.
One thing I totally forgot to mention in this discussion is that against all expectations, JD Martinez is vaccinated. I hadn't had that on my Bingo card.
If things don't change, then Houck won't be available then either. It's a long ways off though - 5+ months from now. A lot can happen between now and then. Maybe Canada will relax their rules a little. But obviously that's up to them. And then Houck has several months to decide whether he's going to reconsider getting the vaccine or not.
I think an interesting question is how teams will handle this going forward. There's a lot made of "personal choices" but honestly, unavailability via a choice is pretty much the same as unavailability through injury, except that one can actually be avoided. We've seen teams move on from players all the time due to injury; at some point I would expect teams to also move on from players due to vaccine unavailability.
In the NFL there's the old saying that you can't make the club from the tub. Well, you can't get on the diamond in Toronto without a shot, and if teams are going to have big series in Toronto they have to consider the penalty for carrying an unvaccinated player.
Wouldn't surprise me if many players and management are wishing the Canada rules will go away. Which they likely will. This summer? Who knows.
Yeah, the vaccination requirement will eventually go away in Canada. This is life now.
Last edited:
That surprised me. Brasier REALLY surprised me. Maybe he realizes how expendable he is.
It's nothing to do with me, just a friendly heads up. We've been warned and IMO have been afforded a bit more leeway than we have been in the past.
If you can't steer clear of this, don't post in the thread.
As someone with immune-compromised family members, I would especially appreciate this.
It's certainly a small sample size so far, but the majority of those who have had to go on the restricted list instead of playing in Toronto have been fringe major leaguers – bench players or guys buried in the pen with little service time and no guarantee of being under contract beyond this year. This should be surprising (but it's probably not) since it's definitely a poor career choice on their part. This early in the season their teams are probably still hopeful about their futures (since they did make the opening day roster), but if the travel restrictions are still in place in August and September, it would certainly be understandable if a team decides it's easier to just send these guys packing before a Toronto trip than to have to juggle a 40-man roster issue that ends up affecting other players.
The French have their “l’esprit de l’escalier” to describe things they wanted to say after the moment when it would have been most apt. The phrase describes climbing the stairs in the recognition of what should have been said, and in remorse for it not having come to mind.
I thought last night about Friday Night Lights and the excellent motivational speech delivered by coach Billy Bob Thornton before the ultimate contest or OT or whatever it was.
The memorable phrase from it is the exhortation - not to win, but - to go out there and “be perfect for each other.” It’s a Crispian’s Day/Agincourt sentiment, and I offer it here as almost precisely the opposite of what Tanner Houck’s failure communicates to his teammates. I hadn’t the language to describe why I was done rooting for him, but that’s it in a nutshell.
We’re not in the LCS or anything, but they are in a formative stage as a team. I don’t want to overstate it but chemistry is delicate. In a subtle but substantive way, Houck’s act, in its extraordinary premeditation, amounts to a poisoning of the fraternal well harder to fathom than any late-innings chicken and beer scandal.
Lots of good tattoo parlors in SoCal. Let him take his talents to the baseball backwater more suited to the commitment-level of which he’s capable.
I thought last night about Friday Night Lights and the excellent motivational speech delivered by coach Billy Bob Thornton before the ultimate contest or OT or whatever it was.
The memorable phrase from it is the exhortation - not to win, but - to go out there and “be perfect for each other.” It’s a Crispian’s Day/Agincourt sentiment, and I offer it here as almost precisely the opposite of what Tanner Houck’s failure communicates to his teammates. I hadn’t the language to describe why I was done rooting for him, but that’s it in a nutshell.
We’re not in the LCS or anything, but they are in a formative stage as a team. I don’t want to overstate it but chemistry is delicate. In a subtle but substantive way, Houck’s act, in its extraordinary premeditation, amounts to a poisoning of the fraternal well harder to fathom than any late-innings chicken and beer scandal.
Lots of good tattoo parlors in SoCal. Let him take his talents to the baseball backwater more suited to the commitment-level of which he’s capable.
I currently have Covid, and am fully vaxxed and boosted, and nearly lost my FIL to Covid a few months ago (literal miracle he survived). I'm on the *please get vaccinated* side of things. That said, I'd just like to request that in this thread we stick to the baseball impact of Covid. If we're going to ask/demand that some people not post that the rest of us are being too sensitive, can we also ask/demand that people not call Houck a "selfish a-hole" (or whatever) in this thread? Can we ask that people please just stick to the baseball side of things? I think that's only fair.
I hope that you aren't experiencing symptoms and that you get better quickly if you are. And that's good news about your FiL.
We're doing our best to keep this, and other threads on the main board, just baseball. In the future, if you feel that a post crosses the line, please use the report function. One of us will look at the post in question.
Yes, let's not forget that Whitlock gave up the tying run in the 8th in the Yankee game. It was a cheap home run, but still a home run.
First off, I'm sorry to hear about your illness, but glad to hear your father in law recovered.
Second, there's not a "side" to certain things. Certain things are just facts.
Fact: Houck is unvaccinated - he's not claiming a medical or religious exception, merely that it's a personal choice.
Fact: Unvaccinated individuals are more likely to catch the varying strains of Covid and have more severe reactions.
Fact: The Boston Red Sox exist in a close-proximity environment, where transmission of Covid is possible; we know this because it happened last year, from Aug. 27 to mid-September.
Fact: In that period the Sox mostly tread water, and the Sox squeaked into the post season by one win. Another loss and they may have been in the position of Toronto.
So if Houck is choosing to be unvaccinated, and (thus) choosing to sit out games in Toronto, it's quite fair to point that out and question his commitment to the team.
nomarramon, concurring.
Setting aside how we each feel about the COVID vaccines or mandates, and even setting aside the notion that Houck's choice increases COVID-related risks to himself the talented starting pitcher as well as the rest of the team and staff such that the on-field product may suffer in the future, he made a choice not to do a simple thing and did so knowing that choice would prevent him from playing in Toronto. This choice has, at least arguably, resulted in a loss or two against fellow AL East contenders so we have actually seen it harm the team over the past week. It is fair comment on him as a member of a baseball team to call him selfish under these circumstances.
Edit: I hope you get well soon, BaseballJones.