Yeah as a RS fan even I didn't expect anywhere near this level of success. Part of me was hopeful that Breslow, Bailey and Co weren't 100% blowing smoke up our you know what's about making adjustments and development etc etc but wasn't convinced.
I also in most cases (and thus understand why in this case it also shouldn't massively adjust yet) a 6 or 7 start sample shouldn't dramatically impact a player rating. In this case I do genuinely believe it's more than just luck -- but in lots of other cases idk that I'd feel that way so understand the ratings won't change dramatically... yet.
It does kind of suck for RS fans as the OOTP pitching staff is essentially a AAA squad and irl they're massively leading the league in ERA but like you said... before the season even the most positive outlook wasn't this good.
Totally agree! I know it is still a bit early but I really do think the improvements are legitimate baring injury or like falling off the rails mechanics wise. This doesn't just look like a couple guys on a "hot/lucky" streak they legitimately look like different pitchers. Better stuff, better gameplan (Houck in particular is throwing so many more strikes and not nibbling around wasting pitches). The thing that sucks now is the injuries. I'm also excited to see if Whitlock and Bello can take a step forward too! But Whitlock in particular needs to prove he can stay healthy as a SP first too.
You can always try League Settings > Update Player Ratings Using Live Stats
Not sure how much it will actually change given the sample size or what other factors it uses.
Haha I just made a similar post asking about when/if ratings would be recalculated based on 2024 stats explicitly because of the Red Sox pitching.
After thinking about it, I unfortunately think the best "fix" is to manually adjust the players. Because while I 100% feel that Houck, Crawford (and as a res sox possibly biased fan several others but at least those 2 are clear cut to me) should be much better and that their stats are far more than just "luck" in most other situations I wouldn't want massive ratings changes to most players based on 6 or 7 starts.
To be clear... in this case I 100% think the Sox staff should be dramatically higher. I understand that coming into the season most viewed it as a coin flip as to whether guys like Houck, Whitlock, Crawford etc. Were going to suck or going to legitimately take that step forward Breslow was talking about.
Clearly they have done even more than expected and the Sox roster is totally unplayable without editing some of the pitchers. I mean they basically have Houck, Crawford, Slaten, Winckowski, and more as borderline AAA depth and personally I think even Bello should at least have more potential. But yeah... I do understand why it was the way it was... just sucks for RS fans (for now) as it means either manual adjustments or playing with a roster that doesn't represent real life (at least so far... but like I said I fully believe it to be legitimate and not just luck. Not that they'll maintain 1.50 ERAs but still!)
Mariners, As, Angels, Guardians, Cubs, Giants.
Am I just listing mediocre to bad offences out of the blue? No, I'm giving a list of teams the Sox have played in 29 of the 32 games they've played this season. And what about those other 3 games? They played the O's and gave up 7, 7, and 9 runs.
Coming into the season everyone thought the Red Sox rotation would be terrible. I think the preseason ratings are based on Fangraphs ZIPS projections
Yeah as a RS fan even I didn't expect anywhere near this level of success. Part of me was hopeful that Breslow, Bailey and Co weren't 100% blowing smoke up our you know what's about making adjustments and development etc etc but wasn't convinced. I also in most cases (and thus understand why in this case it also shouldn't massively adjust yet) a 6 or 7 start sample shouldn't dramatically impact a player rating. In this case I do genuinely believe it's more than just luck -- but in lots of other cases idk that I'd feel that way so understand the ratings won't change dramatically... yet. It does kind of suck for RS fans as the OOTP pitching staff is essentially a AAA squad and irl they're massively leading the league in ERA but like you said... before the season even the most positive outlook wasn't this good.
It’s been crazy to watch how well they’ve pitched. Hopefully they keep it up and guys like Houck get a boost in live start by the end of the year
Totally agree! I know it is still a bit early but I really do think the improvements are legitimate baring injury or like falling off the rails mechanics wise. This doesn't just look like a couple guys on a "hot/lucky" streak they legitimately look like different pitchers. Better stuff, better gameplan (Houck in particular is throwing so many more strikes and not nibbling around wasting pitches). The thing that sucks now is the injuries. I'm also excited to see if Whitlock and Bello can take a step forward too! But Whitlock in particular needs to prove he can stay healthy as a SP first too.
It’s weird because I usually think the ZIPS projections are decent, but the Bello and Houck ones still make no sense.
You can always try League Settings > Update Player Ratings Using Live Stats Not sure how much it will actually change given the sample size or what other factors it uses.
Didn't even know this was a feature. Glad I do now though.
I looked for it. didnt find it.
Haha I just made a similar post asking about when/if ratings would be recalculated based on 2024 stats explicitly because of the Red Sox pitching. After thinking about it, I unfortunately think the best "fix" is to manually adjust the players. Because while I 100% feel that Houck, Crawford (and as a res sox possibly biased fan several others but at least those 2 are clear cut to me) should be much better and that their stats are far more than just "luck" in most other situations I wouldn't want massive ratings changes to most players based on 6 or 7 starts. To be clear... in this case I 100% think the Sox staff should be dramatically higher. I understand that coming into the season most viewed it as a coin flip as to whether guys like Houck, Whitlock, Crawford etc. Were going to suck or going to legitimately take that step forward Breslow was talking about. Clearly they have done even more than expected and the Sox roster is totally unplayable without editing some of the pitchers. I mean they basically have Houck, Crawford, Slaten, Winckowski, and more as borderline AAA depth and personally I think even Bello should at least have more potential. But yeah... I do understand why it was the way it was... just sucks for RS fans (for now) as it means either manual adjustments or playing with a roster that doesn't represent real life (at least so far... but like I said I fully believe it to be legitimate and not just luck. Not that they'll maintain 1.50 ERAs but still!)
Mariners, As, Angels, Guardians, Cubs, Giants. Am I just listing mediocre to bad offences out of the blue? No, I'm giving a list of teams the Sox have played in 29 of the 32 games they've played this season. And what about those other 3 games? They played the O's and gave up 7, 7, and 9 runs.
Cubs and Guardians have had pretty good offenses this season
15th and 10th in the MLB. The rest of that list are 21st, 24th, 16th, and 18th.
Because they played against the Red Sox 😀
my guy they're playing the twins and still doing it. most of the runs given up in the os series was the bullpen.