Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: May 05, 2006 at 05:09 AM (#2004943)
What's the deal with Seanez? I haven't had a chance to see many games, and his line so far is pretty strange (TTO all star!):

IP    H  HR  R  BB SO
10.1 14  4  11  4  15


How do you strike out 15 in 10.1 and still give up 14 hits? Is that a .625 BABIP?
   2. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: May 05, 2006 at 05:10 AM (#2004945)
Ok, let me be the 11,581st person on BBTF to write, "that looked ok in live preview..."
   3. Xander Posted: May 05, 2006 at 05:16 AM (#2004951)
Seanez is such a bizarre pitcher to watch. His stuff literally changes from AB to AB. He made Lyle Overbay, who has worn us out over the last two days, look absolutely silly in his only AB against him today. But that doesn't take away from the fact that he has allowed 4 HR in 9.2 IP. 4 HR in 9.2 IP. That is inexcusable, and why I feel uncomfortable bringing him in any game we are up any number of runs, or down by less than 4 runs.
   4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 05, 2006 at 11:08 AM (#2005056)
Miko - use the square brackets for "pre" tags. It looks like crap in live preview, but you end up with a table.

Foulke warmed up when Clement was struggling in the 6th. I think he just figured he'd send him in for an inning because he was already warm. It wasn't about the game being in doubt. Tito definitely seems to think that once a pitcher has warmed up, throwing an inning doesn't add too much extra stress.

I'm not too concerned about the innings totals by the top relievers. The Red Sox have had a pretty weird distribution of runs, where in half of their games, there's been either a tied ninth or a save opp 9th. That won't continue, for the same reason that Bobby Thigpen holds the save record - there's only so many opportunities a team will create.

It seems likely to me that the new pitching'n'defense Sox will play more close games than the team has in the past, and Tito might need to adjust slightly, and not worry about getting work for his guys in less close games. But I think the overall stats so far, which show a very heavy workload for the best relievers, are greatly a function of the run distribution, and I expect they'll even out.
   5. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 05, 2006 at 11:11 AM (#2005059)
Here's the table:

IP H HR R BB SO
10.1 14 4 11 4 15 


It's weird. It seems like Seanez' slider is completely nasty, but his fastball is straight and mediocre, and he doesn't always get the break on the slider that he needs. But I don't really understand, from watching him - that's just speculation, really.
   6. Buster Olney the Lonely Posted: May 05, 2006 at 11:45 AM (#2005064)
Is any lead safe for the EZ boys? Yuck. See what DelCarmen and Hansen can do.
   7. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: May 05, 2006 at 11:51 AM (#2005069)
This is true MCoA - his slider has excellent break and he seems to control it fine, but every fastball I've seen from him isn't that fast grabs a large chunk of the plate.
   8. chris p Posted: May 05, 2006 at 02:06 PM (#2005146)
yeah i really think delcarmen should have been in the game instead of tavarez. actually i'm pretty happy with tavarez as a long reliever.
   9. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: May 05, 2006 at 02:22 PM (#2005163)
I can't believe they signed Tavarez to a two-year contract. For $6.7 million.

Tavarez' ZiPS predicts he'll only give up three HR in 71 innings. Since he's already given up three in nine innings, that means we can expect sparkling, HR-free relief for the rest of the season, right? RIGHT?
   10. tfbg9 Posted: May 05, 2006 at 02:42 PM (#2005188)
"I think that Francona needs to learn a few simple lessons:

--You use your best pitchers in close games, not in games you’re winning by a lot.
--You can let pitchers throw more than 1 ip per appearance.
--You practically have to let pitchers throw more than 1 ip per appearance or you will quickly burn them out."

Wow. This seems as absurdly presumptuous as that other guy's posts in game chatter who's always nitpicking and second guessing Varitek's pitch calling.
   11. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: May 05, 2006 at 02:49 PM (#2005191)
I suspect Francona's philosophy is not to let teams back in games when they're down 5+ runs, so he brings out the better relievers. Just a guess. I hope that's not his philosophy.
   12. Joel W Posted: May 05, 2006 at 02:54 PM (#2005197)
tfbg9, I think I'm the one always nitpicking about Varitek's game calling, but I do it here, not in game chatter. Regardless, I think the myth of Varitek great game caller should last insofar as it brings good pitchers in as free agents. I just think it's a myth. I think he's prepared, and intelligent, but that he has a huge flaw, which may be related to his preparedness. He simply can't work with pitchers who have large amounts of movement. He wants them to hit spots, and he can't.

Do we have any evidence that it's easier on pitchers to throw more IP/g to throw the same amount of innings?
   13. OlePerfesser Posted: May 05, 2006 at 02:57 PM (#2005201)
I can't defend Tito's usage patterns--haven't seen enough games live.

But there might be a bigger issue here: As griffy hints in #9, the FO made some big bets on veteran talent this off-season, and not too many of them seem to be paying huge dividends. Not only in the bullpen, but around the keystone. Sure, it's way early, but...

Given the disarray in the FO this winter, we should avoid pointing fingers of blame at any one guy, but I'm going to cut Tito a little slack (temporarily) for over-using guys who are getting hitters out because, once again, he's hampered by some "talent" that's stinking real bad right now.

Of course, a sunshiney appraisal would be that these guys will soon get it together and we'll romp...
   14. veer bender Posted: May 05, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#2005203)
Yup, last night was agonizing watching Varitek set up on the outide corner whenever Clement got to 2 strikes. On at least one pitch, Clement actually came pretty close to the spot but it broke just a little and was called outside.
   15. tfbg9 Posted: May 05, 2006 at 03:03 PM (#2005207)
JoelW-I was talking about myself. I'm always ######## about 'Teks's pitch calling. Especially ALWAYS CALLING OUTSIDE FASTBALLS 1-2 OR 0-2,thus speeding up bats and resulting in 5 foul balls per AB, etc, instead of a K. You too, eh?

Interesting observation about the subject you just offered. What about Pedro?
   16. tfbg9 Posted: May 05, 2006 at 03:07 PM (#2005211)
Oh, and Foulke needs to work a lot to be sharp. Roughly every other night, basically. And Tito wanted to get the putrid taste of Shea's bomb out of Keith's mouth with a clean outing. Weird sentence.
   17. Joel W Posted: May 05, 2006 at 03:17 PM (#2005222)
haha, missed that tfbg9. I guess we're all in agreement on Tek. It's so f'ing frustrating.

On Pedro, I think Varitek probably deferred to him a lot. I wouldn't call a game if I were catching Pedro.
   18. chris p Posted: May 05, 2006 at 03:24 PM (#2005235)
What about Pedro?

what about him? he was pretty much a god. there was nothing varitek could do to make him inneffective.
   19. tfbg9 Posted: May 05, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#2005242)
Actually, I think 'Tek had the same effect of artificially driving up Pedro's pitch counts by calling for way too many outside fastballs when ahead in the count. But that's extememly presumptuous of me; he's a MLB catcher with a ring, and I'm a second-rate baseball nerd on the 'net.
   20. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: May 05, 2006 at 04:23 PM (#2005275)
Don't sell yourself short tfbg9, you're a first rate internet baseball nerd.
   21. Dave Cyprian Posted: May 05, 2006 at 04:36 PM (#2005283)
re: 'Tek and outside fastballs, you guys may have a point I will be watching for this now. But two things that come to mind, a) Schilling has a stated preference for outside fastballs so when he's on the mound it may be different, b) at home, Fenway has so much space out there in right field, 'Tek may be trying to avoid too many Monster wall balls.
   22. tjm1 Posted: May 05, 2006 at 04:39 PM (#2005286)
Re whether we have evidence that more innings per appearance is less damaging - I think so, at least anecdotally. The fact that we see relievers show signs of oversue at all, while so many starters do not says something. Remember Rob Murphy? Absolutely dominant his first year in Boston, but the 80 something appearances did him in (along with all the times Morgan had him warm up and then didn't bring him in). In the 70's it was routine for relievers to throw 50 or so 2 inning stints a year, and most of them survived it. I'm sure that in detail all pitchers will break down in different ways, and some may recover quickly from throwing, while others can throw 140 pitches once in a while withot much damage. I think, though, that the extremes -very high pitch counts, and too many appearances without any rest - are what do guys in.
   23. Joel W Posted: May 05, 2006 at 04:44 PM (#2005289)
re: 'Tek and outside fastballs, you guys may have a point I will be watching for this now. But two things that come to mind, a) Schilling has a stated preference for outside fastballs so when he's on the mound it may be different, b) at home, Fenway has so much space out there in right field, 'Tek may be trying to avoid too many Monster wall balls.


This is fine for Schilling. He throws straight fastballs, and has no movement. He gets outs by hitting spots. The problem w/ Varitek is he acts like everybody 'hits spots' like that, and can. But Clement has lots of movement on his fastball and other pitches. So let the movement work. He wouldn't set up outside 0-2 for Wakefield? He'd say, 'do your thing.' So why does he do it for others, when they basically win baseball games doing the same thing. Throw pitches that move, watch hitters miss. Sometimes they hit them, but often they don't. I mean, Varitek could even ask for more pitches. Maybe he could try to get Clement to throw a straight 4-seamer early in the count so then he can throw his other pitches. But for the life of me, I don't get why he insists on acting like pitchers with great movement should throw like Schilling. I frankly think it's related to his obsession with hitters weaknesses instead of his own pitcher's strengths.
   24. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: May 05, 2006 at 04:49 PM (#2005292)
Isn't getting the outside fastball part of the whole Leo Mazzone pitching philosophy? It's using the low outside fastball to set up the breaking ball, I believe. If Varitek is calling them on 0-2 and 1-2, though, it's not really setting up the breaking ball. It seem like the outside fastball should be called earlier in the count, and the pitcher of course needs to be able to throw an effective outside fastball for strikes.
   25. tfbg9 Posted: May 05, 2006 at 05:02 PM (#2005300)
"It seem like the outside fastball should be called earlier in the count, and the pitcher of course needs to be able to throw an effective outside fastball for strikes."

This is what I'm talking about. With Schilling for example. You gotta keep them honest, but... when there's runners on, on 0-2/1-2 counts, I think 'Tek needs to call a lot more fastballs up and in, or splitters/sliders away to try to get K's. I hate this pitching to contact stuff with men on and there being a count where there's a significant chance of a K if the hitter swings at a pitch out of the zone. And, you throw a bunch of splitters away ahead in the count, you can get some called strike 3's with the heater on the outside corner, with the "bluff factor." Not as much downside.
   26. Darren Posted: May 06, 2006 at 12:05 PM (#2007349)
Papelbon pitched again last night, despite injury concerns and a 3-run lead.
   27. Darren Posted: May 06, 2006 at 12:25 PM (#2007351)
'm not too concerned about the innings totals by the top relievers. The Red Sox have had a pretty weird distribution of runs, where in half of their games, there's been either a tied ninth or a save opp 9th. That won't continue...

This is exactly my point. They have had a lot of close games which have required the use of the best relievers. On that point, they are doing the right thing by using their best pitchers in high lev situations. But they've also had games like Thursday, where they're up by a lot and still use those best pitchers. That's a bad idea.
   28. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 06, 2006 at 12:47 PM (#2007353)
This is exactly my point. They have had a lot of close games which have required the use of the best relievers. On that point, they are doing the right thing by using their best pitchers in high lev situations. But they've also had games like Thursday, where they're up by a lot and still use those best pitchers. That's a bad idea.
The only non-close games that Papelbon has pitched in were opening day, and against the Yankees. His high IP projection is basically entirely a function of the outlier distribution of close games. He seems to be on a basic closing pattern with a few extra innings in tie games. That should be fine.

Foulke is hard to pin down, because he started the season in mop-up, as Francona kept trying to get him 2 IP stints in low-lev situations to get him back on track. His numbers are high, but it's hard to identify a pattern that will continue. I will note that Foulke has four 70 G, 85 IP seasons in his career, and one 70 G, 100 IP season. Foulke's on pace for 83 G, 106 IP, which is higher, but not too far away from workloads he's handled before. Exactly what pattern the Sox have in mind for Foulke isn't clear yet,

Timlin's projection seems well within the range of normal - 70 IP in 78 G. That's a few too many games, but it's within expectations. He seems to be on his normal set-up pattern.

Foulke is the only one I can see some worries with. I don't know what pattern they're going to use him in, but so far, he's pitched in a few too many games. His pattern remains to be seen, and it's possible that it could include too many non-close games.
   29. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 06, 2006 at 01:21 PM (#2007357)
And as I said above, Foulke warmed up in the 6th when Clement was in danger of making it a close game. He pitched becuase he'd warmed up already, not because Tito thought the game was in doubt.
   30. OlePerfesser Posted: May 06, 2006 at 01:27 PM (#2007359)
I'm reassured by MCoA's assessment. (And would add that any game aainst the Yankees is a close game.)

Generally, overuse poses two worries: (a) diminished effectiveness as one wears down over the season; (b) heightened risk of a blowout that might shorten a career.

Might the Sox be totally ignoring (b) because Foulke, IIRC, is in the final year of his deal?
   31. Darren Posted: May 06, 2006 at 01:37 PM (#2007361)
Again, though, you're really talking past my point. I agree with you that the numbers thus far are not catastrophic, they're just high, particularly in appearances.

My point is that they were already high 3 games ago. The past 3 games have provided various opportunities to ease off those three guys, and he has not done so. My concern is that if you're going to overwork them when you have a bunch of close games, then continue to do so in games where it's not close, when will they get rest?
   32. Darren Posted: May 06, 2006 at 01:49 PM (#2007363)
I don't know about B but the Sox should be very worried about A because Timlin has worn down at the end of each of the past couple years and Foulke is coming back from knee problems.

And as I said above, Foulke warmed up in the 6th when Clement was in danger of making it a close game. He pitched becuase he'd warmed up already, not because Tito thought the game was in doubt.

So when the game got within 5-1 with one runner on, Foulke warmed up? Doesn't sound all that close, but fine I guess. I have a little secret and apparently I'm the only one who knows about it. Warming up is not as stressful as warming up + pitching in a game. You can actually have a guy warm up and then not use him. It's not as easy on him as if he never warmed up, but it is, in fact, less stressful than being put into the game. Tito/whoever seem to take this to the extreme.
   33. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 06, 2006 at 02:08 PM (#2007365)
My point is that they were already high 3 games ago. The past 3 games have provided various opportunities to ease off those three guys, and he has not done so. My concern is that if you're going to overwork them when you have a bunch of close games, then continue to do so in games where it's not close, when will they get rest?
Which opportunities? Wednesday's game was within a run all the way down, so the Sox have to use their best relievers there.

Thuesday, there's Foulke for an inning. That's one opportunity, and as I said, there were extenuating circumstances.

There's also two three-run saves by Papelbon, but if he doesn't pitch those innings, either Timlin or Foulke takes them, so it hardly reduces the strain on the three.

As I see it, there's one inning in the last three games that perhaps shouldn't have gone to the big three, but did. I agree that pitching that inning was more stressful than not pitching it, but it's not a situation where Tito just decided out of hte blue to throw Foulke into a 6-run game. And I don't see "various opportunities" in the last three games - which other situations were you thinking of?
   34. Darren Posted: May 06, 2006 at 03:53 PM (#2007412)
Various opportunities:

--Wed: Using any of the three for 2 IP would have let one rest and also set you up better for extras.
--Thurs: the aforementioned Foulke opportunity.
--Fri: use Timlin for 2 IP, saving Foulke.

The other thing that's weird is that we have a couple years of evidence that Tavarez is a good setup man. He hasn't pitched well thus far this year, so he's been pitching mopup. Meanwhile, on the offensive side, you have Loretta still batting #2, despite being lousy last year and just terrible this year. Why are they treated so differently? (That isn't meant as a criticism, per se, but just a question.)
   35. Dave Cyprian Posted: May 06, 2006 at 04:04 PM (#2007419)
Today Chris Snow (Globe) posed the question, shouldn't Youk hit 2nd on Crisp's return (which is now scheduled for perhaps May 19)? His corresponding quote from Tito is, "I don't make the line-up two weeks in advance." Which I take as something less then a ringing endorsement of Loretta, and that Youk will be hitting 2nd when that time comes. I guess we can't expect him to pull the trigger on obvious moves as quickly as he did with Pap/Foulke every time.
   36. Toby Posted: May 06, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#2007428)
In the past few weeks I've read so many different rules proposed for how to use Foulke, it's laughable.

use Foulke in close games.
use Foulke for longer than 1 inning at a time.
but take Foulke out when the game is no longer close.
use Foulke regularly.
don't use Foulke too much.
don't use him to finish games just for the sake of finishing games.

I'm not really sure we need all these situational rules.

The Foulke Rules should be (in order):

1. Use him regularly, but not too much.
2. Use him for 4-8 batters at a time.
3. As long as he's one of our most effective relievers, bring him in when the game is close, and take him out when the game is no longer close.

In my view, Rule 3 is important, but subordinate to rules 1 and 2. I think that's Tito's view as well.
   37. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 06, 2006 at 04:21 PM (#2007430)
I think Loretta's been unlucky. He has a .288 LD% and a .236 BABIP. That's completely unsustainable.

I heard Youks say in an interview before the game last night that Loretta has been hitting tons of liners, but they've all been at defenders. I think he's right, and Loretta will start climbing toward .280-.300 pretty soon. I think the reason Tito hasn't pulled Loretta is because he and the coaches and hte FO believe that Loretta is hitting much better than his stats show, and that this ought to show up in his production as the season goes along.

On the other argument, I don't think that 2-inning outings make much a difference. As I said, all those innings go to the big three, and they'd still have the same total IP projection, which was half of your argument above.

Further, if Timlin throws the ninth last night, you need to get Papelbon up in the bullpen if anyone gets on base - if it comes down to a 1-run game, you have to have Papelbon ready to step in. So it doesn't rest the pitchers quite as well as it might seem. On Wednesday, Foulke pitched poorly, so he would have been a bad choice for a second inning. I guess Timlin could have pitched the ninth, but then I'd be complaining about high-lev innings going to suboptimal pitchers. Would you have preferred Timlin pitch the ninth on Wednesday?
   38. philly Posted: May 06, 2006 at 04:23 PM (#2007431)
The other thing that's weird is that we have a couple years of evidence that Tavarez is a good setup man. He hasn't pitched well thus far this year, so he's been pitching mopup. Meanwhile, on the offensive side, you have Loretta still batting #2, despite being lousy last year and just terrible this year. Why are they treated so differently? (That isn't meant as a criticism, per se, but just a question.)

I think modern managers are primed to make quick decisions on releivers - this guy's got it or he doesn't. If he does, then the manager rides the hot hand. If he doesn't, then the manager shunts him off to mopup duty.

Position players get more slack because they have bigger and therefor presumably more stable track records. That doesn't quite fit Loretta because he wasn't very good last year either, but in general it's true.

I think that's a pretty good intuitive understanding of the different kinds of statistical pedigrees that the two types of players are apt to have. It may be frustrating in particular situations, but in general it makes sense.
   39. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 06, 2006 at 04:25 PM (#2007434)
Also, before anyone argues that Papelbon should have pitched the 8th and 9th on Wednesday, here's why I think that should not and would not have happened.

1) Foulke pitched so poorly that he had to be relieved in the 7th. Timlin was already in the game, so he would not have been saved for extras.
2) In the top of the 8th, the Sox were losing by a run. I don't think that's a high enough leverage situation to stretch out your closer for two innings.
   40. Darren Posted: May 06, 2006 at 04:44 PM (#2007441)
Yes, I would have liked to see Timlin pitch the 9th on Wed., particularly because the game was tied and there was a good chance of going to extras. (I agree Pap shouldn't have pitched the 8th and 9th, because he's pitched a lot lately and you'd be screwing yourself if there were extra innings.)

On the other argument, I don't think that 2-inning outings make much a difference. As I said, all those innings go to the big three, and they'd still have the same total IP projection, which was half of your argument above.

It's part of my argument for sure. I'd much rather see Paps and Foulke end up with 85 IP than what' they're on pace for. But dropping the number of appearances is easily as important. Throwing 85-90 games is just as rare, and seems likely to be as straining, as pitching 100 IP.
   41. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 06, 2006 at 05:11 PM (#2007462)
Throwing 85-90 games is just as rare, and seems likely to be as straining, as pitching 100 IP.
Right, but Timlin and Papelbon do have work patterns that project them to throw this many games. The Red Sox will have fewer close games as the season goes on, and they will pitch in fewer games because of that. I don't see any need to alter their usual usage pattern because that pattern will lead to reasonable IP and G totals, unless the Sox have a very, very strange season.

This is why I only noted Foulke's extra inning and not the possibility of 2 IP stints. Asking for 2 IP stints is asking for Francona to change the usage patterns of these pitchers. I have argued that they are currently being used on patterns perfectly normal to MLB, and thus we can conclude that the cause of their high G and IP totals is not the usage pattern (because so few MLB pitchers ever throw 85 G), but rahter the cause is the distribution of close games. If the cause is the distribution of close games, there's no need to change the usage pattern - the problem will solve itself.
   42. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 06, 2006 at 05:12 PM (#2007463)
...Timlin and Papelbon do not have work patterns...
   43. villageidiom Posted: May 06, 2006 at 07:14 PM (#2007701)
I have a little secret and apparently I'm the only one who knows about it. Warming up is not as stressful as warming up + pitching in a game. You can actually have a guy warm up and then not use him.

There's another little secret: warming up yesterday + pitching today is more stressful than not warming up yesterday + pitching today. When warming up, relievers often throw more pitches than they do in a game, and only so many of those warmup throws are less stressful to the body.

Not only is it Fracona's job to make sure the right kinds of relievers are available for the next day, but also that enough relievers are available for the next day. Bringing in X relievers, while warming up X+Y, is not good. If you're going to warm him up, there's not much sense in sitting him down & bringing someone else in.

Now, I'll agree with you that there were possibly some better choices than Foulke in that situation. Even with a 4-run lead that early in the game I'm not sure I'd get Foulke warming up. Frankly, I don't understand the Incredible Disappearing Delcarmen. But given he was warmed up, he's the right guy to bring in.
   44. Bob Loblaw Posted: May 06, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#2007780)
Loretta also seems to get a ton of credit for being a "smart" hitter, and the bunt with Mora deep last night will only add to that feeling. I don't necessarily agree, but managers do tend to like having somebody in the 2 slot who they feel can handle the bat to do something even if he's not getting hits.
   45. Chip Posted: May 06, 2006 at 07:54 PM (#2007791)
Loretta also seems to get a ton of credit for being a "smart" hitter, and the bunt with Mora deep last night will only add to that feeling. I don't necessarily agree, but managers do tend to like having somebody in the 2 slot who they feel can handle the bat to do something even if he's not getting hits.

Also, Loretta doesn't strike out much, feeding the conventional wisdom of "he'll put the ball in play when you want him to." Youks fits much more into the Bellhorn mold as a #2 with his three true outcomes profile.
   46. PJ Martinez Posted: May 06, 2006 at 08:51 PM (#2007893)
"Youks fits much more into the Bellhorn mold as a #2 with his three true outcomes profile."

Really? Youkilis doesn't hit for much power, and while he's struck out a decent amount so far this season, that hasn't been true of him in the past, has it? He seems to have struck out a lot looking so far, though I haven't seen any numbers on that. I think he needs to protect the plate a bit more with two strikes, but I don't see him as a "three true outcomes"-type hitter. He's more of a line drive and singles hitter who walks a lot, isn't he?
   47. Chip Posted: May 06, 2006 at 11:40 PM (#2007993)
He's more of a line drive and singles hitter who walks a lot, isn't he?

I don't know. His SLG right now is higher than Bellhorn's in his '04 season, and he also is tied with Manny for the team lead in Ks.
   48. Buster Olney the Lonely Posted: May 08, 2006 at 12:19 AM (#2009457)
I think he needs to protect the plate a bit more with two strikes, but I don't see him as a "three true outcomes"-type hitter. He's more of a line drive and singles hitter who walks a lot, isn't he?


He's beginning to remind me of a right-handed Wade Boggs, though Boggs had much better bat control.
   49. chris p Posted: May 08, 2006 at 12:42 AM (#2009468)
"Youks fits much more into the Bellhorn mold as a #2 with his three true outcomes profile."

bellhorn fits much more into the #4 mold in san diego.
   50. Toby Posted: May 08, 2006 at 01:55 AM (#2009542)
One more thought about Foulke.

It seems to me Foulke is regarded, in our lefty-free pen, as "the righty who gets lefties out". Tito likes to bring in Foulke in the middle of an inning to face a lefty. And I've seen Tito make at least one statement to the effect that he likes for Foulke to face lefties.

Am I the last one to notice this? Hadn't seen it really discussed, but maybe I missed the discussion.
   51. tfbg9 Posted: May 08, 2006 at 03:53 AM (#2009656)
Sort of.
   52. Darren Posted: May 10, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#2012165)
KEITH FOULKE PITCHED TONIGHT. He entered with an 8-run lead. Good thing he's already overworked.
   53. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 10, 2006 at 11:45 AM (#2012466)
I'd say that the Foulke thing now has to reflect some sort of conscious choice. He's pitching at every possible opportunity. My guess is that the Sox and Foulke think that he needs regular work to get his consistent stuff back together. I can't speak to whether it's a good idea - it doesn't seem much like a good idea - but I think the team would disagree that he's overworked. I think they want him to be working at this rate right now.

Papelbon and Timlin are down to 91 and 66 projected IP, respectively. Li'l Papi still projects to 85 games, which is too many, but not too far from reasonable. Another week with only occasional high-lev situations and they'll both be on perfectly normal projected schedules.
   54. villageidiom Posted: May 10, 2006 at 12:32 PM (#2012488)
KEITH FOULKE PITCHED TONIGHT. He entered with an 8-run lead. Good thing he's already overworked.

Do you trust Rudy Seanez with an 8-run lead?
   55. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: May 10, 2006 at 12:38 PM (#2012493)
Well, we have our LOOGY. Is there a law saying that you have to have one?

The Orosco Administration must be stopped.
   56. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: May 10, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#2012646)
David Riske is scheduled to throw in Pawtucket tonight, according to ESPN. It would be nice if he could join PaTimFo as a decent bullpen arm. Looking at his stats, he's had some decent seasons, but I seem to remember the Cleveland fans seemed kind of down on him.

It looks like there will be a few roster moves over the few next weeks as Riske, Wells, and Coco come back. Holtz, DiNardo and Mohr/Harris are the obvious choices to go down, although you could probably make a weak case for Dinardo staying on as LOOGY/long man, if such a thing is possible.
   57. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: May 10, 2006 at 03:00 PM (#2012650)
I really need to proofread before I post.
   58. tfbg9 Posted: May 10, 2006 at 04:58 PM (#2012816)
Manny's knee was "ginding a little" last night says Tito. That's why he got him out of there after the HR. He's tenatively starting tonight against the Moose, but they'll check him out before the game. Sorry for the potentially bad news.
   59. Mike Emeigh Posted: May 11, 2006 at 07:41 PM (#2014921)
David Riske is scheduled to throw in Pawtucket tonight, according to ESPN.


Riske threw 26 pitches (13 strikes, 13 balls) to four hitters, fanning the first two, then walking the next two. He's probably at least a week, maybe two, away.

-- MWE

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3125 seconds
41 querie(s) executed