I don't have time to look them up, but out of curiosity, how many inherited runners scored in those BP innings.True, but misleading. Gives the impression that the bullpen has sucked. It hasn't. Over those same 7 games, here's what the bullpen has done:
5.0 ip, 2 h, 1 r, 1 er, 1 bb, 5 k - 1.80 era
3.1 ip, 6 h, 1 r, 1 er, 1 bb, 4 k - 2.70 era
4.0 ip, 3 h, 1 r, 0 er, 3 bb, 4 k - 0.00 era
5.2 ip, 2 h, 3 r, 0 er, 2 bb, 7 k - 0.00 era
4.0 ip, 5 h, 5 r, 5 er, 1 bb, 2 k - 11.25 era
1.0 ip, 5 h, 4 r, 4 er, 0 bb, 1 k - 36.00 era
5.0 ip, 5 h, 4 r, 3 er, 2 bb, 4 k - 5.40 era
TOT: 28.0 ip, 28 h, 19 r, 14 er, 10 bb, 27 k, 4.50 era, 1.36 whip, 8.7 k/9
So overall, not great. BUT...of that, there were really two bad situations:
Valdez at TB: 0.1 ip, 3 er
and
Diekman at Tor: 0.2 ip, 3 er
So in that 1.0 ip, they allowed 6 er. Take those away, and you're looking at 27.0 ip, 8 er allowed for an era of 2.67.
Now you can't take that away because they all count. But one was in the 5th inning by the last guy in the bullpen (Valdez) in a spot where Whitlock would not have been used (I thought they were going Houck there to piggy back with Hill), and the other was a disaster by Diekman last night, but from what you guys were saying in the game thread, while the homer was unforgivable (you had a good post about that), apparently the doubles were kind of miraculous pieces of hitting by Toronto.
IOW, while the bullpen has had some letdowns, on the whole, even over this stretch, it's not been as bad as Mazz indicates.
Meanwhile, the offense scored in those 7 games: 1, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, and 5 runs (2.6 per game). Hard to win that way.
I don't know.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.I would have preferred them to leverage Whitlock into an old school 120 IP kickass multi-inning reliever, that's where he's been effective and I suspect given the way starting pitchers pitch fewer and fewer innings that's where his value will be the highest. Houck and Crawford borked those plans, but this talk about turning Whitlock into a starter makes me uneasy. A great reliever who can go 2-3 innings per game is almost priceless.
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.Oh good grief.
Well that, of course, is different than saying we should trade him away for a bag of Big League Chew.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.
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.Well that, of course, is different than saying we should trade him away for a bag of Big League Chew.
IMO it should've been the ultimatum from day 1.I'm so disgusted with Houck I'd demote him to Worcester right now until he grows up. His "personal decision" has directly led to three losses on the trip.
Of course it's hyperbole. Rather silly hyperbole, especially coming from a mod.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.
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).IMO it should've been the ultimatum from day 1.
Get jab or enjoy lovely Worcester Massachusetts for the year.
He wasn't posting as a mod, and I see 100 times worse than that every day around here. You know all this.Of course it's hyperbole. Rather silly hyperbole, especially coming from 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.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.
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.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).
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 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.
*except for in Toronto*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.
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).Last night I would have absolutely had him in there in the 8th to finish the game with a 5-2 lead. 100%.
I would have had in the night before with a 2-1 lead as well.
And the Tampa game, I'd have him in there in the 9th and 10th.
Doing it my way that's 3 more wins. 3 wins out of 18 games. That's a huge swing.
That's, to me anyway, important to know when talking RP stats. Especially when stating what you did in your previous post.I don't know.
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's, to me anyway, important to know when talking RP stats. Especially when stating what you did in your previous post.
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.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'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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
You can look at it this way: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.
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.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).
Except that players who can't play because they can't get into Canada literally do go on the restricted list.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.
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?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.
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.Except that players who can't play because they can't get into Canada literally do go on the restricted list.
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.What if there’s a playoff (PLAYOFFS???) series in Toronto?
What if there’s a playoff (PLAYOFFS???) series in Toronto?
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.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.
You may want to self editYeah, the vaccination requirement will eventually go away in Canada, especially as it becomes clearer that there is no hope of eradicating the virus and that most new cases (at least with Omicron) aren't too severe.
That surprised me. Brasier REALLY surprised me. Maybe he realizes how expendable he is.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.
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.:sigh: People are really way too sensitive about this.
But done.
Sorry, "people" wasn't meant to mean you specifically. I don't think it's possible to do the e-word, but I'm guessing the second part of that sentence is the more questionable part, so I acquiesce in the name of harmony.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.:sigh: People are really way too sensitive about this.
He understands this.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.
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.He understands this.
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.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.
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.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.
First off, I'm sorry to hear about your illness, but glad to hear your father in law recovered.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.
nomarramon, concurring.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.