Rick Porcello: What's Wrong?

[RedOctober3829]

Rick Porcello is on his way to a record of 4-8 with a 5.61 ERA.  FIP of 4.11 xFIP of 3.94.  BABIP of .306 which is lower than his career average of .310.  His GB% is much lower(42.4%) than his career average of 51.5%.  An explanation why is that he is throwing his sinker the least amount that he's ever thrown it in his career(33.2%).  In fact, each year his percentage of sinkers thrown has gone down since 2007.  Why wouldn't he throw the sinker more given that it is one of his better pitches?
 
What adjustments do you think he can make to turn this around?  Was Ben Cherington wrong to sign him to a long extension before seeing how he would adjust to pitching in Boston?  In my opinion, this was a huge risk to sign him before throwing a pitch in a Red Sox uniform.  You had a year to see if the plan for him could come to fruition i.e. supposed improved infield defense to help a GB pitcher.  Ben did not have to sign him when he did.  I know the alternative would have been if he did well that his price would go up.  
 

 

[AB in DC]

An explanation why is that he is throwing his sinker the least amount that he's ever thrown it in his career(33.2%).  In fact, each year his percentage of sinkers thrown has gone down since 2007.  Why wouldn't he throw the sinker more given that it is one of his better pitches?
 

 
If that's the case, then maybe a decent catcher would start calling for the sinker more often.

 

[soxhop411]

Rick Porcello is on his way to a record of 4-8 with a 5.61 ERA.  FIP of 4.11 xFIP of 3.94.  BABIP of .306 which is lower than his career average of .310.  His GB% is much lower(42.4%) than his career average of 51.5%.  An explanation why is that he is throwing his sinker the least amount that he's ever thrown it in his career(33.2%).  In fact, each year his percentage of sinkers thrown has gone down since 2007.  Why wouldn't he throw the sinker more given that it is one of his better pitches?
 
What adjustments do you think he can make to turn this around?  Was Ben Cherington wrong to sign him to a long extension before seeing how he would adjust to pitching in Boston?  In my opinion, this was a huge risk to sign him before throwing a pitch in a Red Sox uniform.  You had a year to see if the plan for him could come to fruition i.e. supposed improved infield defense to help a GB pitcher.  Ben did not have to sign him when he did.  I know the alternative would have been if he did well that his price would go up.  
 

I get why he signed him to an extension. Before Lesters last year some where wondering if he would be on a playoff roster/option picked up. You either sign him to a extension and he pitches well (this being a bargain) or what is happening this year. If you don't sign him you could be lucky that you didn't make that risk or could end up paying more if he pitches amazing.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

It does seem as if he's changed his approach and is trying to be a strike out pitcher instead of a ground ball pitcher.  This seems like an odd and foolhardy path.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I know the alternative would have been if he did well that his price would go up.  
 

 
The expression "penny wise pound foolish" was coined to describe exactly this kind of thinking. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

 
The expression "penny wise pound foolish" was coined to describe exactly this kind of thinking. 

Were you expecting #1 or even #2 type of performance from Porcello?  I was not.  Being penny wise and pound foolish on Porcello wasn't going to make or break this club.  With Lester, yes it hurts.  

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

whatever is wrong, it needs to get straightened out.  he should be out of the rotation.  as I suggested in the game thread tonight, why not send him to the minors--I assume he has to clear waivers, but if someone wants to claim him, that's probably not a bad thing.  Just don't replace him in the rotation with Masterson--give Brian Johnson a chance.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Were you expecting #1 or even #2 type of performance from Porcello?  I was not.   

I wasn't either, and I'm not sure why you thought I meant that. I was referring to making a sizable $ commitment before he'd ever pitched for us on the grounds that if they waited it might need to be a bit more sizable.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Ben sort of chased a career year with Porcello.  Probably wasn't as good as his numbers last year and is probably not as bad as his numbers now.  Bill James was never a fan of GB type pitchers so Ben obviously was not listening to him on Porcello (and Masterson). 

 

[Rasputin]

His home run rate is dramatically higher than pretty much ever and I don't know why or how to fix it.

 

[pantsparty]

His home run rate is dramatically higher than pretty much ever and I don't know why or how to fix it.

That's tied into his lack of ground balls. His HR/FB rate of 11.8% isn't abnormal for him (9.9, 9.9, 11.5, 14.1, 9.5 the past 5 years), he's just giving up a shitload more fly balls.

 

[threecy]

I hope this is sort of like Josh Beckett 2006.

 

[Coachster]

Is it possible that he could end up as our closer? Yeah, I know the HR rate is awful, but in shorter durations he might be OK. In his first three innings, opponent's OPS are .557, .740 and .599. That jumps to .929 and 1.039 in the 4th and 5th. First time through the order he appears to be OK. I know it's a lot of $$$ for a closer, but it's a sunk cost, and if he could be successful.....

 

[jimv]

Is it possible that he could end up as our closer? Yeah, I know the HR rate is awful, but in shorter durations he might be OK. In his first three innings, opponent's OPS are .557, .740 and .599. That jumps to .929 and 1.039 in the 4th and 5th. First time through the order he appears to be OK. I know it's a lot of $$$ for a closer, but it's a sunk cost, and if he could be successful.....

One of his (apparently few) strengths is the ability to eat innings. And a bullpen role would negate that.
 
DO any of the more pitching savvy posters feel that the Red Sox have been trying to change his approach or mechanics? To have any hope of effectiveness he needs to get down in the zone, so many pitches seem to be above the belt lately

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

According to this - http://www.overthemonster.com/2015/5/29/8685271/red-sox-rick-porcello-rotation-dingers - Porcello has changed his pitch mix from 2-seamers and change-ups to 4-seamers + cutters + curveballs.

I wonder if Porcello is trying to strike out more batters because the defense has been so unreliable? I also wonder what the game planning communication is like for such a big change to occur.

 

[iayork]

DO any of the more pitching savvy posters feel that the Red Sox have been trying to change his approach or mechanics? To have any hope of effectiveness he needs to get down in the zone, so many pitches seem to be above the belt lately

Why do you say that? He's never been a pitcher who pitches down in the zone, even last year when his results were good.  Here's the location of his 2014 four- and two-seam pitches (taken from Pitching Repertoire of Rick Porcello, where there's more analysis of his 2014).
 
Four-seam: 

Spoiler

Two-seam: 

Spoiler

 
 
What's more, in spite of the confident pronouncements that ground-ball pitchers have to target the bottom of the zone, the correlation between bottom-of-zone-ness and ground-ball-ness is not all that great. Here's height above the plate for different types of batted balls:
 

Spoiler

I don't know what's going on with Porcello, if anything, but figuring it out might need more than stereotypes and knee-jerk reflexes.  

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

whatever is wrong, it needs to get straightened out.  he should be out of the rotation.  as I suggested in the game thread tonight, why not send him to the minors--I assume he has to clear waivers, but if someone wants to claim him, that's probably not a bad thing.  Just don't replace him in the rotation with Masterson--give Brian Johnson a chance.

It was just as ridiculous a suggestion in the game thread as it is here.  Short of a phantom injury with rehab, Rick Porcello is not walking into the clubhouse at McCoy anytime soon, and the expectation that Brian Johnson might be an immediate upgrade is wish casting.  He' still projecting as a mid- to back-end starter.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

iayork, I'd be really curious to see those animations in context--next to league-average ones, or next to those of a pitcher who really does work the bottom of the zone. My first reaction to the FT animations was "looks pretty low to me." 
 
Likewise, what that last graphic tells me is that pitchers are most often trying to pitch near the bottom of the zone, and the better they succeed, the more likely they are to get a ground ball. Again, the effect isn't dramatic, but that doesn't mean it's insignificant.

 

[Clears Cleaver]

He has been awful overall as we know, but it seems he's been especially awful in innings directly after the Red Sox score. Anyone have those stats?

He's like the anti-closer/shut down guy. It has to be disheartening to his teammates and a sign that he lacks confidence or is just weak minded.

 

[RedOctober3829]

He has been awful overall as we know, but it seems he's been especially awful in innings directly after the Red Sox score. Anyone have those stats?

He's like the anti-closer/shut down guy. It has to be disheartening to his teammates and a sign that he lacks confidence or is just weak minded.

From Tim Britton last night: "Since May 22nd, Porcello has had 8 opportunities for a shutdown inning.  He has allowed 16 runs in those such innings."
 
From Brian MacPherson on June 11th: Porcello has yielded runs in nine of 18 shutdown-inning situations this season (50 percent). A season ago, Porcello allowed runs in 13 of 59 shutdown-inning situations (22 percent). The season before that, Porcello allowed runs in 13 of 45 shutdown-inning situations (28.9 percent).

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

It was just as ridiculous a suggestion in the game thread as it is here.  Short of a phantom injury with rehab, Rick Porcello is not walking into the clubhouse at McCoy anytime soon, and the expectation that Brian Johnson might be an immediate upgrade is wish casting.  He' still projecting as a mid- to back-end starter.

you're right, my idea to put Porcello thru waivers with the goal of sending him to Pawtucket is a bad one.  What I'm trying to figure out, though, is how he gets out of the rotation for now.  It seems foolish to keep sending him out there unless something changes.  apparently Farrell thinks Porcello needs to use his 2 seam fastball more.  he's been using the 4 seamer more than in the past to get more strikeouts, but it's gotten him away from his successful approach in the past. If this is indeed the issue, then it makes sense to give Porcello a chance to straighten things out in the rotation.  But if he won't change his approach, or if changing his approach doesn't help, then something has to give at some point (i.e. this can't go on indefinitely).  sure, phantom injury to the DL would be ok--as seems to have happened with Masterson.  

 

[In my lifetime]

 
 
Well let's compare 2 pitchers on the RS:
 
Pitcher A: In 86.2 innings giving up 95 hits, while walking 21 and a WHIP of 1.34
Pitcher B: In 86 innings, he has giving up 6 less hits and walked 1 more. He has a WHIP of 1.29
 
I think you would say those are very comparable numbers.
 
The difference is that Pitcher B has stuck out 17 more and given up 8 less gopher balls.
Their ERA difference is amazingly 1.74 between the pitchers. (5.61 vs. 3.87)
 
Pitcher A is Porcello, B is Bucholz.
 
My point is that the line between success and failure in small samples is very thin.  It is getting tougher for me to sell --- be patient, with each passing day, but I am still hopeful.  

 

[Toe Nash]

8 HR in 86 innings is kind of a lot.

 

[iayork]

iayork, I'd be really curious to see those animations in context--next to league-average ones, or next to those of a pitcher who really does work the bottom of the zone. My first reaction to the FT animations was "looks pretty low to me." 

Here's Wade Miley's 2014 two-seams for comparison (from Pitching Repertoire of Wade Miley):

Spoiler

 

[ivanvamp]

I never had a problem with the trade for Porcello.  I thought he was worth moving Cespedes for, in light of the Sox' needs.
 
But I never liked that extension - paying him to be a top of the rotation starter when he really has never been that.  I was told how he was and how much those guys actually cost, so the Sox were actually doing pretty well for themselves to lock him up for that money.
 
True - *IF* Porcello really was a a top of the rotation starter.
 
Which I still don't think he is.
 
Now, he's just 26.  And at ages when most MLB starters are still getting guys out in AA and AAA, he was pitching 160+ major league innings.  So clearly he has potential.  His stuff seems good enough to make him a pretty good starter.  He had a lot of success last year.  
 
But he has a long, long way to go before he's worth the money they gave him.  I hope, for obvious reasons, he gets there.  But so far, it's not looking very good.  We shall see. 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

8 HR in 86 innings is kind of a lot.

 
The 2013 Red Sox pitchers gave up 156 HR in 1454 innings.  Lackey and Dempster each gave up 26 in 189 and 171 innings respectively
 
If you say that team was lucky, in 2007 it was 151 HR in 1438 innings, with Matsuzaka, Schilling, Wakefield, Tavares and Lester all giving up more than 1 HR per 10 innings (only Beckett was under).
 
 
 
I'd say 8 in 86 is decent

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 apparently Farrell thinks Porcello needs to use his 2 seam fastball more.  he's been using the 4 seamer more than in the past to get more strikeouts, but it's gotten him away from his successful approach in the past. If this is indeed the issue, then it makes sense to give Porcello a chance to straighten things out in the rotation.  But if he won't change his approach, or if changing his approach doesn't help, then something has to give at some point (i.e. this can't go on indefinitely).

Apparently, Porcello threw 46 4-seamrs versus just 12 2-seamers (earlier this year, it was more like 50-50, which was still high for him). Link: http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2015/06/pinpointing_the_problem_for_bo.html. Farrell thinks that throwing the 4-seamer more has caused Porcello to alter his release point, which means he's leaving more pitches over the middle of the plate.

Then there is this nugget from Farrell in the article SPWF linked: "Farrell hinted at some frustration in being able to convince Porcello to utilize his best pitch more. / "That's been (advised) for quite some time,'' said Farrell, "to use his two-seamer more, to know you're going to get contact, but that contact hopefully is on the ground.'"

It's like Porcello is trying to live up to his contract by being a different pitcher.

 

[Toe Nash]

 
The 2013 Red Sox pitchers gave up 156 HR in 1454 innings.  Lackey and Dempster each gave up 26 in 189 and 171 innings respectively
 
If you say that team was lucky, in 2007 it was 151 HR in 1438 innings, with Matsuzaka, Schilling, Wakefield, Tavares and Lester all giving up more than 1 HR per 10 innings (only Beckett was under).
 
 
 
I'd say 8 in 86 is decent

Yes but 8 is the difference between Buchholz and Porcello. The post I was responding to was making the point that their peripherals were similar, but they're not. Clay is 11th in the majors in HR/9, and Porcello is 80th among qualified starters.
 
Porcello's rate is OK and he has gotten unlucky in his ERA vs his periphs, but he's still not pitching very well, or near as well as Buchholz is.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Ahhh, I missed that.  Yes, he's disappointing everyone who thought he was  #1 or #2 starter material

 

[donutogre]

The 2013 Red Sox pitchers gave up 156 HR in 1454 innings.  Lackey and Dempster each gave up 26 in 189 and 171 innings respectively
 
If you say that team was lucky, in 2007 it was 151 HR in 1438 innings, with Matsuzaka, Schilling, Wakefield, Tavares and Lester all giving up more than 1 HR per 10 innings (only Beckett was under).
 
 
 
I'd say 8 in 86 is decent

We're not talk about 8 HR though - Porcello has given up 8 *more* than Buchholz. He sits at 13 right now in 14 starts (86 innings). He could easily hit those rather ugly Lackey / Dempster numbers you cite.

Good news (sort of) is that this is a major outlier in his career, though it sounds like he's gone away from the ground ball strategy that worked for him. Hopefully he can get back to his career norms somehow.

EDIT: Toe Nash beat me to it.

 

[MikeM]

I never had a problem with the trade for Porcello.  I thought he was worth moving Cespedes for, in light of the Sox' needs.
 
But I never liked that extension - paying him to be a top of the rotation starter when he really has never been that.  I was told how he was and how much those guys actually cost, so the Sox were actually doing pretty well for themselves to lock him up for that money.
 
True - *IF* Porcello really was a a top of the rotation starter.
 
Which I still don't think he is.
 
Now, he's just 26.  And at ages when most MLB starters are still getting guys out in AA and AAA, he was pitching 160+ major league innings.  So clearly he has potential.  His stuff seems good enough to make him a pretty good starter.  He had a lot of success last year.  
 
But he has a long, long way to go before he's worth the money they gave him.  I hope, for obvious reasons, he gets there.  But so far, it's not looking very good.  We shall see. 

 
The surface claim "that's how much those guys actually cost" suffered from the same logic flaw putting an enormous amount of emphasis on the fact that Porcello happened to belong to a small sample size list of players (and from there drawing the conclusion that he'd be the CC Sabathia of the group) did imo. Regardless of a need for the fit to be there, you can't always just pound square pegs into round holes. 
 
Sometimes i just don't get it lately. We've more or less come full circle back to an age when taking an absolute'ish all-in-on-scouting approach is worthy of standing O's, and where obsessions over every shiny potential never-will-be seemingly result in record breaking payouts. We then go on to apply the same amount of cheering in avoiding those extra few million/per to Lester, and god forbid the act of making a legitimate offer to Max Scherzer, as if this ends up in us avoiding the REAL dangers out there. Dead money in latter years concerns, bloated payrolls, ect ect. Yet in the end, and in that process of what arguably amounts to being overly cute, we just end up being pushed towards making stupid bets like handing out this extension. Ultimately leaving us even worse off then had we simply taken the GM'ing For Dummies route.
 
Heck, in the event a full court press from day one had beat Wash to the punch on Scherzer, do we still even sign both Hanley/Panda and trade Cespedes (.308/.340/.508 in 2015) for Porcello? 

 

[TomRicardo]

The fact of the matter is Porcello's pitch selection has been HORRENDOUS.
 
The Red Sox signed a sinkerball pitcher and have tried to convert him to someone who leads with his four seamer.  To compound this, they have moved away from his change up meaning his four seam has a less of a chance to be disguised by his change up.  This is why he has been cranked for HRs
 
This alone is why Juan Nieves should have been fired.

 

[iayork]

The fact of the matter is Porcello's pitch selection has been HORRENDOUS.
 
The Red Sox signed a sinkerball pitcher and have tried to convert him to someone who leads with his four seamer.  To compound this, they have moved away from his change up meaning his four seam has a less of a chance to be disguised by his change up.  This is why he has been cranked for HRs

Why do you say that? His two-seam percentage this year is very similar to last year's, and in his best games this year he used four-seams almost entirely. So far I don't see any evidence that pitch usage is his issue.

I wouldn't blindly accept columnists' claims without checking them.

 

[ivanvamp]

How do things like FIP count strikeouts compared to groundouts?  If you get 3 more strikeouts in a game that produces the same exact stat line otherwise, compared to 3 more groundouts, does that lower your FIP?

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Google is your friend. 

 

[JohntheBaptist]

The fact of the matter is Porcello's pitch selection has been HORRENDOUS.
 
The Red Sox signed a sinkerball pitcher and have tried to convert him to someone who leads with his four seamer.  To compound this, they have moved away from his change up meaning his four seam has a less of a chance to be disguised by his change up.  This is why he has been cranked for HRs
 
This alone is why Juan Nieves should have been fired.

Agreed with responses to this above but would just add--where are you getting that the Red Sox are the ones "converting" him this way? They dealt for a groundball pitcher and Farrell just recently suggested he thinks Porcello should be using the two seamer more. I doubt Nieves had anything to do with this at all, unless you read something I didnt.

 

[ivanvamp]

Thanks Abs.  

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Why do you say that? His two-seam percentage this year is very similar to last year's, and in his best games this year he used four-seams almost entirely. So far I don't see any evidence that pitch usage is his issue.

I wouldn't blindly accept columnists' claims without checking them.

 
PITCHf/x has him throwing fewer two-seam fastballs and changeups than ever, and more four-seam/misc fastballs than ever. So its not just the columnists.
 

 
What this doesn't address is the real question though - is there a causative relationship between Rick throwing a ton of four-seam fastballs and giving up fewer ground balls? Some digging would have to be done to figure that out.

 

[iayork]

 
PITCHf/x has him throwing fewer two-seam fastballs and changeups than ever, and more four-seam/misc fastballs than ever. So its not just the columnists.

Did you actually look at that? Are you really saying that a change from 30.0% to 28.3% explains the results from his most successful season to his least?

 

[The X Man Cometh]

Did you actually look at that? Are you really saying that a change from 30.0% to 28.3% explains the results from his most successful season to his least?

 
No, but the jump in fourseam usage is pretty significant. I don't know if it does but its worth exploring given how the results have shaken out so far.

 

[iayork]

 
No, but the jump in fourseam usage is pretty significant. I don't know if it does but its worth exploring given how the results have shaken out so far.

If what people mean by "throwing fewer two-seams" is actually "throwing the same number of two-seams but fewer curves", this is going to be a hard discussion to hold.

His most effective games this year were the ones he threw the highest percentage of four-seams, according to pitchfx.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

If what people mean by "throwing fewer two-seams" is actually "throwing the same number of two-seams but fewer curves", this is going to be a hard discussion to hold.

His most effective games this year were the ones he threw the highest percentage of four-seams, according to pitchfx.

 
Again, I never suggested that the change in pitch mix is the cause of his problems to date, or that he needs to throw less. But TomRicardo's original statement, that Rick is throwing more fourseam fastballs than ever, and less changeups than ever, is corroborated by PITCHf/x's electrical eye test. Its his conclusion from it (change in pitch mix = more home runs) that needs to be scrutinized. I'm not convinced.

 

[iayork]

 
Again, I never suggested that the change in pitch mix is the cause of his problems to date, or that he needs to throw less. But TomRicardo's original statement, that Rick is throwing more fourseam fastballs than ever, and less changeups than ever, is corroborated by PITCHf/x's electrical eye test. Its his conclusion from it (change in pitch mix = more home runs) that needs to be scrutinized. I'm not convinced.

Again, his most effective games (4-29 and 5-5) have had his highest percentage of fourseams and lower than average change ups. His worst game (4-19) had one of his highest changeup uses. In his latest three games, all disappointing, pitchfx says he used few fourseams, tons of two seams, and lots of changes. In the better one of those three, 6-15, he threw more fourseams and fewer changes.

TRic's suggestion is completely unsupported by actual outcomes. When theory doesn't predict reality, it's the theory that has to go.

 

[smastroyin]

But at the end of the day, he is still a much less effective pitcher this year right?
 
So let's say the Sox decided that "you know what, Rick, instead of all those changeups, we think you could throw a great 4 seamer." and he bought into it.  OK, now his four seamer is better, and maybe his best pitch, but the change-up and others have all suffered and in aggregate he is worse.
 
The question of mix is still interesting in this case, right?  I mean even if you say "well sure but it's the loss of effectiveness of the change-up that is the real culprit" I don't buy any argument that entirely de-couples the two events.  So yes, his most effective games might be 4 seamer heavy, but given his previous success, the answer to "how do we make Rick Porcello better" isn't necessarily to say "throw even more 4 seamers" because these things often interact.  
 
Theoretical exercise with relative value exaggerated:
 
Let's say traditionally, Porcello's pitches had values like:  6, 8, 7, 9, 4
Now, he is being asked throw differently, and those values are:  7, 3, 2, 3, 2
 
Your argument is that "FB is best with 7, I reject the argument that more is worse" but that pitcher is clearly worse, and I think the question of whether throwing more of the FB is a result of the ineffectiveness of the other pitches (as in, he has no feel for the change-up right now) or if he is being asked to throw more 4 seams in approach, and it has thrown off his other pitches as he tries to improve the 4 seam.  Or if more 4 seams changes his pitch mix so it is obvious when he is throwing a change-up, or whatever.

 

[iayork]

But at the end of the day, he is still a much less effective pitcher this year right?

Yes. I'd like to think that understanding why might involve something reality-based, instead of making declarations that exactly contradict reality.

 

[chrisfont9]

whatever is wrong, it needs to get straightened out.  he should be out of the rotation.  as I suggested in the game thread tonight, why not send him to the minors--I assume he has to clear waivers, but if someone wants to claim him, that's probably not a bad thing.  Just don't replace him in the rotation with Masterson--give Brian Johnson a chance.

This is nuts. He's had six bad starts. That's life as a starting major league pitcher. You'd rather bring up Masterson or Johnson? Really?
 
Obviously he's part of the problem but it wouldn't kill the Sox to score some runs for him. He's had four or fewer in 10 of 13 starts.

 

[StupendousMan]

In the interests of re-directing the efforts of those who have some time on their hands this week (I, alas, don't have much), could I suggest that rather than examining the _type_ of pitch thrown over the past few years, or during games this year, one look at the _location_ of those pitches?  
 
I am not claiming that this will lead to a definitive answer, but it might be more useful than continuing to focus on pitch _type_.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

This is nuts. He's had six bad starts. That's life as a starting major league pitcher. You'd rather bring up Masterson or Johnson? Really?
 
Obviously he's part of the problem but it wouldn't kill the Sox to score some runs for him. He's had four or fewer in 10 of 13 starts.

you're right, I overreacted.  (and under no circumstances would I support Masterson in the rotation). 
 
however, I don't think this can go on indefinitely. 5 of his last 6 starts have been either very bad or disastrous.    if he keeps pitching like this, something has to give.  I am not good at setting cutoffs (who is?) but at some point, this can't go on.  I guess see how he does over next few starts and reassess.  Sounds like Farrell thinks he needs to change his approach.  If Porcello persists in an approach Farrell thinks is not the best one and Porcello keeps getting these results, then I think a DL stint could be in order.  But yes, no Masterson

 

[rmurph3]

Interesting discussion. This is a couple of weeks old, but I took a deep dive into Porcello's issues over at BaseballHQ (link here, it's a free article). Not at all claiming to have diagnosed the problem, but I agree with the takes here that the problem seems to reside at the intersection of pitch mix and location.

 

[AB in DC]

 
 
With Nieves, he was 3-2, with a 4.38 ERA. 2.3 BB / 8.1 K / 1.4 HR.
 
Since Willis was hired, he's 1-6 with a 6.61 ERA. 2.1 BB / 6.0 K / 1.3 HR.
 
Any easy way to break out pitch selection by the two coaches?

 
Between this split (basically April vs. May/June) and the stuff on pitch selection, I can't help but wonder how things would be different if he were pitching to a more experienced catcher.  I know there's very little data to support catcher's effect on pitching stats (other than framing I guess) but it seems like a real possibility here. 
 
Maybe I'm being opimistic, but it's at least plausible that he will improve this summer pitching to Hanigan again, and improve against next year to Vasquez.