Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II
posted at 5/21/2012 8:43 PM EDT
In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part II
[QUOTE]While we are on the subject of Bard, I would ask moonslav, et al, exactly what your expectations are for the 5th starter? I'm thinking he has been adequate and certainly better than Buchholz. Bard has been an OK 5th starter, but I had Doubront in that slot and Bard as our "4" until the innings piled up. That doesn't change the fact that we need a solid #3 starter. I'd prefer Bard be moved to the pen to make room, but that doesn't mean he is worse than Buch or Doub. It just means he has an awesome record as a set-up man. He has made 7 starts and averaged a tad under 6 innings per start. Most people would be happy with that from the fifth starter. In fact, he averages more innings per start than Buchholz or Doubront. Kinda like Wake last year, who was our 6/7th starter giving us more IP than all but Beckett & Lester. He has thrown three passably good games--6 innings against the Indians, giving up 1 ER; 7 innings against the White Sox giving up 2 ER; and 6.2 innings against the Rays giving up 1 ER. I'm not saying Bard will fail as a starter. I know he is not going to start 30 games and give us 180+. We need a dependable starter. In his three worst games, he gave up exactly 5 ER's in each game, hardly a travesty although not good, and he went 5, 7, and 5 innings. In other words, at his worst he has gone at least 5 innings and given up no more than 5 runs. Beckett at his worse was a lot worse, ditto Buchholz. Small sample sizes. Buch is still questionable, but Beckett is a solid starter. As it turns out, two of his best games, against the Indians and Rays, two pretty good teams this year, were both at Fenway. And his three worst games were all on the road at Philly, KC, and Toronto. So part of his problem might be that he is uncomfortable starting on the road. Given the problems with the starters, top to bottom and without exceptions (they have all had lousy games with Buchholz holding the current team record for lousiness), I think there can be no question that Bard has been a useful starter and about what you would expect from the #5 guy. And I really don't see why it is so obvious he should be in a bullpen that is doing just fine without him. Let's talk in a week or two. This pen is having a nice streak, but if you really expect all 7 of these guys to continue at this pace, then I can see your point. I'm Ok with giving bard, Buch and Doubront a few more starts before we decide.
Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
Moonslav, all due respect to the guy who started this thread, but this is about the weakest response I've seen lately, right on par with softy.
My point was and is Bard should be starting because he's the best available on this team. Then I cited specific examples on his 7 starts to confirm his adequacy. You responded with absolutely nothing on that point. Instead you said something about thinking Bard should have been 4th in the rotation, which is meaningless drivel. Then you said the bullpen can't stay this good forever, which is even more meaningless drivel because they have been good for a month and, if they falter, there is talent waiting in Pawtucket. In no case is Bard needed in the bullpen.
You have a tendency to draw conclusions and stick with them no matter what--Salty being an exception to your general tendency.