Garrett Whitlock being shut down and having surgery next week
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
It was obvious his last few outings that his arm slot was low and he didn't look right. I assume this is something that wouldn't get worse pitching through it, or it was a really bad idea to keep throwing him out there.
Also, Judge's 57th homer shouldn't count.
Also, Judge's 57th homer shouldn't count.
No mention on the type of surgery, which is odd. I would guess hip, he's been limping for quite a while.
They could not have handled him any worse this year if they tried. The experiment with him in the rotation was a disaster, not because he was terrible, but because the team lost a ton of games due to bullpen issues once he was out and he got hurt pitching in the rotation.
He's far too valuable a pitcher for them to muck about like this. Get him healthy, get him into the pen, and leave him there.
They could not have handled him any worse this year if they tried. The experiment with him in the rotation was a disaster, not because he was terrible, but because the team lost a ton of games due to bullpen issues once he was out and he got hurt pitching in the rotation.
He's far too valuable a pitcher for them to muck about like this. Get him healthy, get him into the pen, and leave him there.
I assume the surgery is on his hip, the same one that put him on the IL earlier in the season. Presumably, he came back from that not when it was healed but when it was manageable to pitch through it with an eye toward the corrective surgery coming in the off-season. The only question in my mind if that's the case is why they didn't shut him down a couple weeks ago if that's the case. There hasn't been anything to gain from him pitching through it for a while.
Or, get him healthy, get him in the rotation, and leave him there. There's nothing to suggest that the injury happened only because he was starting. That he wasn't 100% recovered when he came back is suggestive of why they didn't put him back in the rotation: they thought 1-2 inning outings would be easier for him from a pain management standpoint than going 5-6 innings at a time.
His inability to stay healthy is one reason NY didn't protect him in 2020. He had TJS in mid-2019, missed the entire 2020 season and has been on the IL three times before this in his two seasons with BOS. The rotation might be better than the bullpen for him because at least he'd have a set schedule as to when he would be pitching.
Whatever they tried to do with Houck and Whitlock this year, it didn’t work, they both ended up hurt, and. a year passed and we really have no idea if either one can be counted on to hold down a rotation spot next year. Feel like they didn’t know what to do with these guys this year from the get go.
Right-hip impingement
View: https://twitter.com/ChrisCotillo/status/1572316274524397575
Seabold will be called up to replace him on the roster. PeteAbe says Seabold to start Wednesday in Cincinnati
View: https://twitter.com/ChrisCotillo/status/1572316274524397575
Seabold will be called up to replace him on the roster. PeteAbe says Seabold to start Wednesday in Cincinnati
Not at all convinced the front office can be blamed for Whitlock's hip injury or Tanner Houck's back injury.
Thanks, I was curious given the first sentence of your post. "His inability to stay healthy is one reason NY didn't protect him in 2020."
99.99% certain this is Bryan T Kelly who specializes in “hip preservation” (sounds kinda scary) and who’s the team doctor for the Rangers, associate doctor for Red Bulls and NYGiants and has an MBA.
He got hurt while in the rotation.
He’s a multi-inning relief ace, I see no reason to make him an average starter instead. He had more impact on games in hi-leveraged games out of the pen instead of going 4-5 innings as a starter.
They need to quit being cute and just do the obvious thing.
No they can’t, unless you think the added innings as a starter contributed to the hip injury.
The major screwup with moving Whitlock to the rotation in the first place is entirely on the FO though.
Without knowing Whitlock's routine and schedule, switching between roles could have contributed given that he had to keep changing how and when he pitches to say nothing of the difference in rest between the two, all of which can compromise mechanics or lead to injury. Another point in favor of "give him a role and stick with it," if they want him to be a starter again, go get better relievers and let him start again, but if he's a reliever, leave him there. Same goes for Houck, though I think reliever is where he belongs anyway.
Not blaming the organization for the injuries. Just don’t think they had a clear plan of what to do with either player and in the end, it was kind of a wasted year for everyone. Maybe it’s just a fluke, but nearly every pitcher on the team missed time this season.
Because this year his results were uneven and naturally he didn’t go deep into games.
More importantly, he’s already an elite relief ace, one who goes more than one inning at a time. That’s incredibly valuable, and that’s where he should stay.
Or maybe he's a guy who had his best season when he was 25 and could never quite recapture that magic again. Wouldn't be the first one, especially for a relief pitcher. I hope not but...
Sure, that’s possible too. Given that he’s thrived as a reliever, I’d prefer they put him in that role and stopped messing around with him.
The problem with him as a reliever is all the rest he seems to need after every appearance. It’s hard to optimally use a pitcher who is so seldom available to pitch. Hopefully the restrictions in his usage lessen over time.
He has had 39 innings as a starter. There is no way to suss put what kind of starter he could be based on such a small sample size. A solid mid rotation starter is more valuable then a bullpen arm.
Reasonable people can disagree, of course. But Whitlock was a good SP in the minors and SP really are more valuable even than very good relievers.
Now, maybe there’s an argument that we weirdly have more SP prospects now than relievers, and that Crawford and Bello should take those SP innings while Whitlock stays in relief.
But there needs to be some kind of argument. Because otherwise the raw IP totals just decide the question. The beginning of the game is also high leverage.
Is that really true, though? Whitlock had more bWAR than Pivetta last year, despite throwing less than half as many innings. This year, Schreiber, Whitlock, and Houck each have more bWAR than Eovaldi and Hill, despite far fewer innings.
It really comes down to how he performs as a starter and as a reliever; it’s at least open to debate as to how valuable he’d be in each role. And of course, that some of the Sox relievers were more valuable than their starters may speak to how mediocre some of the starters were more than anything else.
Interestingly, fWAR liked 2021 Pivetta (and Rodriguez, Eovaldi, and Houck) better than Whitlock.
But of course what you’re saying is true. I guess I don’t expect his FIP to double in a move to the rotation, which is what would have to happen to make his per-inning value drop by half in fWAR terms. But I don’t know that.
Yeah, I don’t think we disagree. If a guy can start, he probably should, although it does seem like some players are better suited to the pen for whatever reason. Given how hard it is to find good starters, I think the team should probably commit to both Whitlock and Houck in the rotation and build up the pen. Of course, that’s easy to say in theory, harder to do it when they may struggle in the rotation and you lose games because of the pen- which probably will happen. But you probably want to make sure these guys can’t start before determining they are relievers, right?
I do not think that is true any more given the move throughout baseball to shorter starts and more frequent and higher-leveraged use of bullpen arms.
Whitlock's key is that he is a multi-inning relief ace. Getting great performance through multiple innings has tremendous value, it's not all that common any more given the plethora of bullpen arms on rosters these days, and it represents a market and strategy inefficiency that the Sox should exploit.
I would assume it is uncommon these days because teams have decided it is better to have multiple relievers throw gas for a single inning at a time, not because there are fewer people capable of doing it. Just because teams have de emphasized something does not make it more valuable. If anything, it is less valuable.
There aren't guys who steal 60 bases anymore not because there are no fast players today. It's because teams don't like stolen bases the way they used to. I would guess the same is true of multi inning relievers.
Of course, it could be that teams have made the wrong decision about how to use relievers.
There's an opportunity here for the Sox to save a bullpen spot and use it on, say, a utility player, because they have a pitcher who can do the multi-inning thing effectively.
As for the last point, for decades teams used fast players to lead off despite poor OBPs because they were stuck in the idea that the leadoff hitter couldn't clog the bases. Finding new strategies for winning is one of the ways the club can get a leg up on the rest of the league.
But it's not a new strategy. It's an old strategy teams have largely abandoned.
When a bullpen- even one with a multi-inning relief ace- inevitably gets overtaxed and burnt out and the team starts losing games because you're running out the Robles of the world in high-leverage situations what good is this utility guy?
His impact as a relief ace is greatly lessened because he can’t go back to back, and generally needs multiple days off after pitching multiple innings. It’s really difficult to use him optimally given the restrictions on his usage. If the “Garret Rules” are to remain in effect, than I think they need to start him.
SJH's idea of Whitlock in this role is predicated on the notion that he can go multiple innings multiple times a week. He can't. They don't, and won't, use him that way. Here's his career MLB numbers...
77 games (9 starts), 151.2 innings
So including injuries (which are an issue for him), he has pitched 34 games a season. Take into account that he's started some, and let's say he pitches 45 games a year in relief. That's one appearance every 3.6 games. That's a little under 2 games a week, at about 1.1 to 1.2 innings per outing. That's it. This idea that he will be a multi-inning, multi-game a week relief ace is a fantasy. We can wish he'd give them 2 innings a game, 3x a week, but it's just not happening. Last year he pitched 3 innings a week. This year he pitched 3.2 innings a week (but that includes 9 starts where he averaged 6 innings a week).
He's just not going to be a multi-inning, multi-game/week relief ace.
77 games (9 starts), 151.2 innings
So including injuries (which are an issue for him), he has pitched 34 games a season. Take into account that he's started some, and let's say he pitches 45 games a year in relief. That's one appearance every 3.6 games. That's a little under 2 games a week, at about 1.1 to 1.2 innings per outing. That's it. This idea that he will be a multi-inning, multi-game a week relief ace is a fantasy. We can wish he'd give them 2 innings a game, 3x a week, but it's just not happening. Last year he pitched 3 innings a week. This year he pitched 3.2 innings a week (but that includes 9 starts where he averaged 6 innings a week).
He's just not going to be a multi-inning, multi-game/week relief ace.
Having a guy who can go multiple elite innings out of the bullpen does hold value, but I don't believe it is more valuable then a solid number three. Despite that we still don't know what Whitlock's ceiling is. It would be pretty foolish of the Sox to relegate him to the pen after 39 innings as a starter and not see if he can emerge as an ace. I would also argue that you need either a solid rotation with guys who can be effective through the order a third time and or a solid bullpen that can pick up the slack if the rotation if the bulk of the rotation is only able to go twice through the order. Part of the reason the team sucked this year is that Cora refused to let go of the idea of using starters only twice through the order when it was apparent the bullpen could not be relied on. The manager needs to be flexible in his strategies which means they need starters.
I am for more optimistic about his ability to be a multi-inning relief ace than you are; the ill-fated experiment with him in the rotation really put the test of him in that role into shambles.
A hypothetical usage schedule, given what Cora said about giving him 2 days off after 2 innings, might be 2 innings, 2 days off, 2 innings, etc. So a week could be Sunday (2), Wed (2), Sat or Sunday for an inning or so. That's 5-6 innings every week with proper rest. All in the highest-leverage, AND with plenty of rest in between.
I really think he can do that, if they'd just make a plan and stick to it.
If you're working on a set schedule of appearances and rest, there's no way you're going to be in the highest leverage situations unless you get extremely lucky.
Mon: 2 innings
Tue: off
Wed: off
Thu: 2 innings
Fri: off
Sat: off
Sun: 2 innings
Mon: off
Tue: off
Wed: 2 innings
Thu: off
Fri: off
Sat: 2 innings
Sun: off
Over two weeks, that's 10 innings, or 5 innings per week. That would come to 135 innings pitched over the course of 27 weeks (start of April through end of Sep). His two seasons he's pitched 73.1 and 78.1 innings, mostly (though not exclusively) in a "relief ace" role. There's NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that they will pitch him this many innings in a week over the course of the season in a relief role. NONE. He might pitch this many innings as a starter, but not as a reliever.
Moreover, having him on this kind of schedule doesn't take into account that you have NO idea WHEN those high leverage innings will happen. Sticking to a strict schedule like I laid out here (based on your plan) looks good, but how do we know that the first Thursday will be a game where he ought to be used at all? Maybe you use him that first Sunday in innings 7-8 in a close game. Ok great. Nice. Then he's scheduled to be "off" the next two days. But it happens that the next two games they have one-run leads going into the 7th and you can't pitch him because he needs those days off to stay on schedule. Sox' bullpen blows one of them and SJH gets upset that Whitlock isn't used. So then Thursday comes and the Sox are in a game with a 5 run difference either way in the 7th. But because it's his "scheduled" day to pitch, do they use him? Well...sure I guess, it keeps him on schedule. But then Friday is another close game and you've already burned him.
Your plan sounds great in your head, @Smiling Joe Hesketh but it's just not realistic.
Tue: off
Wed: off
Thu: 2 innings
Fri: off
Sat: off
Sun: 2 innings
Mon: off
Tue: off
Wed: 2 innings
Thu: off
Fri: off
Sat: 2 innings
Sun: off
Over two weeks, that's 10 innings, or 5 innings per week. That would come to 135 innings pitched over the course of 27 weeks (start of April through end of Sep). His two seasons he's pitched 73.1 and 78.1 innings, mostly (though not exclusively) in a "relief ace" role. There's NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that they will pitch him this many innings in a week over the course of the season in a relief role. NONE. He might pitch this many innings as a starter, but not as a reliever.
Moreover, having him on this kind of schedule doesn't take into account that you have NO idea WHEN those high leverage innings will happen. Sticking to a strict schedule like I laid out here (based on your plan) looks good, but how do we know that the first Thursday will be a game where he ought to be used at all? Maybe you use him that first Sunday in innings 7-8 in a close game. Ok great. Nice. Then he's scheduled to be "off" the next two days. But it happens that the next two games they have one-run leads going into the 7th and you can't pitch him because he needs those days off to stay on schedule. Sox' bullpen blows one of them and SJH gets upset that Whitlock isn't used. So then Thursday comes and the Sox are in a game with a 5 run difference either way in the 7th. But because it's his "scheduled" day to pitch, do they use him? Well...sure I guess, it keeps him on schedule. But then Friday is another close game and you've already burned him.
Your plan sounds great in your head, @Smiling Joe Hesketh but it's just not realistic.
Just based on this year, Whitlock was only 6th leverage index among Sox relievers (behind Robles, Schreiber, Strahm, Diekman, and Barnes).
I mean, it's an example of how something like that might work. By no means would I say it's set in stone.
I harp on this only because as a fan it's extremely frustrating to see your team make decisions that seem like obvious mistakes. I get that good minds can differ, but I am convinced there's a huge opportunity for success just staring them in the face.
I harp on this only because as a fan it's extremely frustrating to see your team make decisions that seem like obvious mistakes. I get that good minds can differ, but I am convinced there's a huge opportunity for success just staring them in the face.
I do think they could use Whitlock as a relief ace, like they used Barnes a few years ago. But that was for only one inning at a time, not multiple innings. It's still a great weapon, but it would only be like 2-3 innings per week.
You use him to win the games when he's available. By no means would I be upset if they used him for 2 innings in a game they win by a run and don't have him available for the next 2 nights. I am a big proponent of nailing down the wins staring you in the face and worrying about the next game later. It would go without saying that the key to using him in this way is being disciplined about not using him on rest days.
As I said above, obviously his use wouldn't be rigid. But he can and should be used more than he has been.
No I get that you'd want to use him for 2 innings in a one-run game and they win. Totally get that. But then he isn't available the next two nights and you have no idea if his next scheduled day is going to be another day when he should be used based on leverage. He might not pitch the rest of the week.
It's just not as easy as you think. Could he pitch more? Maybe, obviously, if injuries weren't an issue. But for a guy who's mainly a reliever, he pitched 73.1 and 78.1 innings the past two years. That's quite a bit for a reliever. I mean in 2021 he pitched the most innings for a Sox reliever, 11.1 more than the #2 guy, Ottavino. So far this year he's pitched the 5th most innings of any pitcher on the team.
They're using him PLENTY.
I need a hug opportunity myself!
But as much as SJH’s argument has merit, I don’t think his ‘21 nor his ‘22 has much predictive value in how he needs to be used, nor is there any proof that his short time as a starter lead to injury.
Any pitcher that has more than 2 plus pitches should be looked at- with an extended opportunity, not 39 innings- as a starter. Houck basically has two pitches. That’s why he will project better as a BP arm. Whitlock looks like he’s got 3 plus pitches and a decent 4th. That’s starter material.
His ‘22 BP innings can likely be reproduced by a FA or trade at a lower cost than can his likely projection as a starter.
Frankly, I don't see how the numbers aren't overwhelmingly suggestive at this point. You can use whatever ones you want, but on a pitch-by-pitch he's proven way more effective as a reliever. ERA+, OPS against, clutch/leverage innings, whatever.
The caveat is that his SSS of 9 starts was a situation where he was thrown into starting early on in the season, (a personal choice by Houck), had to be stretched out, and had a pitch limit of 80-85 (or so it appears). Even so, Whitlock didn't show any kind of intrinsic ability to go deep into games on limited pitches, and he was very much more hittable the second time through the order.
If the Sox have some indication this was situational - that he just needed to build up arm strength to compensate for some weakening that started to creep in after multiple innings, or that his catcher just sucked, or he's past some kind of medical hurdle, then it would make sense to give him a shot at the rotation. He's earned it.
Otherwise his role seems to be relief ace - the high leverage floater Cora once used Matt Barnes as, regardless of the inning. And there. . .shrug. I think he has to be used atypically. It's weird but in 2021 he was not good on 2 days rest - but great otherwise. In 2022, he got better on 2 days rest, but was superior on 0, 1, and 3 days rest. So who knows?
I don't think that either role would be a gross mistake in isolation. (Provided of course he's set up to succeed at that role and isn't jerked about.)
In the context of the actual 2023 5 best starting options and the 3-5 best bullpen arms. . .well, that might be a different story.
The caveat is that his SSS of 9 starts was a situation where he was thrown into starting early on in the season, (a personal choice by Houck), had to be stretched out, and had a pitch limit of 80-85 (or so it appears). Even so, Whitlock didn't show any kind of intrinsic ability to go deep into games on limited pitches, and he was very much more hittable the second time through the order.
If the Sox have some indication this was situational - that he just needed to build up arm strength to compensate for some weakening that started to creep in after multiple innings, or that his catcher just sucked, or he's past some kind of medical hurdle, then it would make sense to give him a shot at the rotation. He's earned it.
Otherwise his role seems to be relief ace - the high leverage floater Cora once used Matt Barnes as, regardless of the inning. And there. . .shrug. I think he has to be used atypically. It's weird but in 2021 he was not good on 2 days rest - but great otherwise. In 2022, he got better on 2 days rest, but was superior on 0, 1, and 3 days rest. So who knows?
I don't think that either role would be a gross mistake in isolation. (Provided of course he's set up to succeed at that role and isn't jerked about.)
In the context of the actual 2023 5 best starting options and the 3-5 best bullpen arms. . .well, that might be a different story.
Wouldn't this be true of pretty much every starting pitcher in baseball? There is a reason numerous failed starters have had success as relievers.
It seems pretty simple to me - either he can make it as a mid-rotation or better starter or he can't, in which case he can still be good in a bullpen role. But he should be given the chance since he has 3 or 4 major league quality pitches.
Maybe as a general truism, but not all starters are going improve in a BP role, and those that do won't become more effective at the same rate, nor can they handle all relief roles. Whitlock - you can throw him in anywhere, anytime, anyone.
If the Sox think he can make the jump to being that mid-rotation starter or better, I'd have no objection to it. But I don't think it's a choice they make in isolation.
If 2023 ends up being: Sale/Paxton, Wacha, Pivetta, Bello, Crawford (Winkowski/Seabold). . .do we really want Whitlock and Crawford swapping places? Especially if the pen is weak? Unless they're convinced Whitlock can go deep into games, he's better off nailing down wins for the other starters.
But if they sign a couple of great BP arms instead of Wacha - sure.
Isn't one of the big things with Whitlock that you can't do this? If he pitches an inning, he gets a day off, two innings/two days, etc.
To me the solution is pretty obvious (depending on BOS's other personnel somewhat): bring him to camp as a SP and start the season that way. If it doesn't work out, you can always permanently shift him to the bullpen later.
Yeah, I had meant you can throw him in at any time in the game, against any batter, in any runners-on situation. Not that he can go back to back to back days.