In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

I don't think either was a good decision - nor did I at the time - but neither was a "strange" decision.  Being a starter is the highest paid, highest profile job a pitcher can have.  Next is closer.  Middle relievers are the bottom of the food chain.  I have no doubt both expressed a desire to start and/or close. 

I actually supported Bard's move to the rotation, as the rotation was thin and middle relief seemed a waste of a good arm to me.  If Bard was not going to be used as the closer (as we all assumed based on his two years setting up for Papelbon) after Papelbon was allowed to walk, then the rotation made sense to me.  But Aceves as closer was never a good idea to me, as he never wanted to do it.  Unfortunately he was probably the best suited to do it...just not emotionally or mentally committed to it.

In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

Going into the season, Aceves was 22-2, with a 2.62 ERA, and a 1.001 Whip, out of the BP.  I'm not sure why making one of the best RPs in BB a closer, is a strange decision.

In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

Bard was coming off a great season as a setup man - and the Sox had allowed Papelbon to leave via FA.

You don't think it is strange that when their closer left they decided to take an elite 8th inning set up man and make him a starter? 

Aceves was fantastic all spring in a starters role and the Sox were desperately trying to round out their rotation with a 5th starter.  Instead of having the veteran Aceves who had pitched great all spring start - they made him the closer.

Those are both strange decisions - that are not based on actual baseball.

 

In response to Joebreidey's comment:

I know you follow the Red Sox - how can you not remember that Aceves was great as a starter all spring and the sox needed a number 5 starter?

everything Ben did last year was horrible...this starter nonsense started it all....let's hope things go better this season....beckett is gone so that's a plus

These guys aren't kindergarten kids. If a guy needs someone to hold his hand and whisper sweet nothings in his ear to be succesful, then he probably doesn't have the make-up to be a solid relief pitcher anyways.

(Not saying Bard is weak.)

This post has been removed.

I never understood making Bard a starter - that was the first problem.

Then they made Aceves a closer - another strange decision.

[/QUOTE]


I don't think either was a good decision - nor did I at the time - but neither was a "strange" decision.  Being a starter is the highest paid, highest profile job a pitcher can have.  Next is closer.  Middle relievers are the bottom of the food chain.  I have no doubt both expressed a desire to start and/or close. 

[/QUOTE]


Bard was coming off a great season as a setup man - and the Sox had allowed Papelbon to leave via FA.

You don't think it is strange that when their closer left they decided to take an elite 8th inning set up man and make him a starter? 

Aceves was fantastic all spring in a starters role and the Sox were desperately trying to round out their rotation with a 5th starter.  Instead of having the veteran Aceves who had pitched great all spring start - they made him the closer.

Those are both strange decisions - that are not based on actual baseball.

[/QUOTE]

A starter is worth far more than a closer, it's not "strange" at all if a young, healthy setup guy wants to start that a team tries to convert him to a starter.  Once that decision was made, it wasn't strange at all to try to convert your best / next best reliever into a closer.

Why the decision was made to make Bard a starter we'll never know....but it's not "strange".

This post has been removed.

I'm thinking   joba was overrated to begin with

it might be the 1st time either had to deal with long term failure

it will be interesting to see what happens with bard

My take on both differs slightly, Bard struggled as a starter after being drafted, found success in the pen before being called up. Joba's development as a starter was stunted out of nessicity when he was called up to pitch put of the pen.

In my mind, while I supported the move of Bard to the rotation based on his stuff and the development and command of his change up. Moving from the pen to the rotation is a tougher transistion than most understand and given that Bard struggled as a starter in the minors. He didn't have the intuitive knowledge of what it takes to work his way through a lineup 3 times every fives day. Both he and Joba also had to learn the how too's at the big league level...Where few in the history of the game have succeeded that didn't posses the makeup and stuff of guys like Gooden, Strasburg and Hernandez...I'd also contend that part of why I believe to this day that Phil Hughes has yet to realize what many thought was a #1 starter when he was called up by the Yankees as a 20 year old is also related to his having to learn at the big league level...

 

 

 

 

A starter is worth far more than a closer, it's not "strange" at all if a young, healthy setup guy wants to start that a team tries to convert him to a starter.  Once that decision was made, it wasn't strange at all to try to convert your best / next best reliever into a closer.

Why the decision was made to make Bard a starter we'll never know....but it's not "strange".

[/QUOTE]

Our next best reliever was Bard. hence he should have been moved to closer. (Not hindisght on my part- I said it back then.)

We'll never know how that would have worked, but despite softy's claims that Bard pitched "decently" as a starter in 2012, he did not.

In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

1-Aceves had 3 ST starts and allowed 11 ERs in 13 IPs.  He had 3 Relief outings where he allowed -0- ERs in 6 IPs.

2-Aceves had a starter 4.18 ERA in his career.  2.62 as an RP.  In 2011, he had an ERA of 5.15 as a starter, and 2.03 as an RP.

Again, using one of the best RPs in BB as a closer makes perfect sense.  Your position is that, because Aceves has always been pedestrian as a starter, only had 9 career starts in 4 years, and had a 7.60 ST ERA as a starter, so he should be a starter.  And he is 22-2 out of the BP, with a 2.62 ERA and a 1.001 Whip, so he shouldn't be given a shot at the closer role.

I see no logic in your position.  

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Our next best reliever was Bard. hence he should have been moved to closer. (Not hindisght on my part- I said it back then.)

We'll never know how that would have worked, but despite softy's claims that Bard pitched "decently" as a starter in 2012, he did not.

[/QUOTE]

The reason I supported Bard to the rotation is that he was the last guy I'd want on the mound in a save situation.  Like everyone else, I assumed he was the closer in waiting.  But I started having doubts well before his September meltdown.

People conjecture that he was worn out, but he pitched less innings in 2011 than 2010, and 73 IPs is not an onerous burden.

And Aceves was our best Reliever in 2011, not Bard.

This post has been removed.

In response to Softlaw1's comment:

He sucked as a starter in the minors as well.

He looked shot last year. Some guys never recover mentally from it.

In response to Softlaw1's comment:

I provided detailed and expanded game logs of Wakefield in 2011 that clearly showed his numbers were greatly effected by poor 3B & SS play as well as more inherited runners allowed to score than all other starters combined. You said his 5.00 ERA was unacceptable.

Bard's game logs were not decent. They were worse than the guy you have been bashing for years.

If these are decent gamelogs, then Wake should be offered softy's fantasy generated $2M to play in 2013.

IP   Pit  H  ER  BB

5.0  96  8   5    1  Horrible worse than  Wastefield

6.2 111 4   1    7  Bad like Wastefield

7.0  96  6   2    1  Decent

5.1 101 8   4   2  Bad like Wastefield

7.0  96  6   5   4  Horrible worse than Wastefield

6.0  97  6   1   4  Decent, but still 10 BB+H in 6 IP

5.0  94  3   5   3  Horrible worse than Wastfield

5.1  92  5   2   4  Decent, but 9 H+BB in 5.1 IP

5.1  94  5   2   2  Decent

1.2  55  1   5   6  Horrible

 

10 starts:

4 Horrible

2 Bad

4 Decent (2 borderline)

 

When Wake became the 5th starter on 5/22/11 he did this:

6.2  4  1  0   Decent

7.0  5  2  2   Decent

6.0  7  4  1   Bad

5.1  5  5  3   Horrible

7.0  4  1  5   Decent, but 9 BB+H in 7IP

8.0  3  3  1   Decent

6.0  7  5  4   Horrible

5.1 11  5  0  Horrible

7.0  9  3  1   Decent

4.2  9  3  2   Bad

6.1 10  7  1  Horrible

(next 7 starts all under 4 ERs allowed)

10 starts:

4 Horrible

2 Bad

4 Decent

Wow! Exactly the same as Bard... hmmm....

 

 

This post has been removed.

I always questioned the idea of making Bard a starter (some posters during 2011 and before were adament about making him a starter) -- because he struggled in the minors. However, it wasn't exactly out of left field. Other teams had great success moving a reliever into the rotation, so considering the success Bard had, it was reasonable to think he might be able to make the move.

Personally, after seeing how he melted down at the end of 2011, I had more doubts about him being a closer than I did of him being a starter.

One thing about the list Moon had had of Bard's starts is that there was one or two starts in there where all or most of the runs he allowed came at the end -- one start in particular that I remember. Valentine did a pss-poor job with the starters early in the season. It's one thing to push a veteran early. But he did a lousy job handling both Bard and Doubrant, two young guys who should have been brought a long slowly to build there confience. Instead, he stayed with both too long in a couple of starts that turned strong starts into disasters.

I have doubts about Bard's ability to bounce back, but we'll see.

melted in 2011 in 3-4 games? Geesh maybe Papelbon career should ended in 2010. Maybe it'd help if 5 of his iherritted didn't come in via Matt Albers and Papelbon in 2 game, like how Bard protected starters ERA by bailing them out a jam. Talk about making a huge stink out of a small sample. Did anyone see he had a 0.95 WHIP for 2011? Which is ELITE.

In response to Mt200's comment:

For a reliever and the role he had, yes, it was a meltdown.

He had 11 appearances in September. He allowed runs in six of those 11 appearances. And it doesn't matter if the next reliever allowed those runners to score. If he needed relief help, that means he didn't get the job done. He wasn't a specialty reliever. His job was to get the Sox out of an inning -- ONE INNING -- and sometimes two. When runners he let on base score is SIX of 11 appearances in September, that means in more than half of his September appearances, he couldn't get the job done.

So yes, that's a meltdown.

And to recap, those six cames are

.2 IP, 2 H, 1 ER
1 IP, 1 H, 5 ER, 3 BB, 1 HBP
.1 IP, 2 H, 1 ER
1 IP, 1 H, 3 R, 2 ER
1.1 IP, 2 H, 2 ER
1 IP, 3 H, 2 ER

And three times that month he allowed two or more walks in just one IP (3 BBs twice). That was a precurser of his control problems this year.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to moonslav59's comment:

Moonslav59, you are much more organized and informative than my professors at MIT.  
The Boston Red Sox should offer you a front office position.   ;)

 

 

This post has been removed.

In response to Softlaw1's comment:

Oh, OK. Bard was "decent" because it was his first 10 starts.

I get it.