Red Sox Plan to Turn to Eovaldi for Relief
Nathan Eovaldi hasn’t pitched in a major league game since April 17, and he won’t until sometime after the All-Star break, but this week, before even beginning a rehab assignment, he’s been cast as a potential solution for one of the Red Sox’s biggest weaknesses: their bullpen. On Tuesday, in the aftermath of the team’s drubbing by the Yankees in the two-game London Series — during which that bullpen was torched for 21 runs and 23 hits in 12.1 innings — manager Alex Cora and president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski announced plans to use Eovaldi as their closer, a job the 29-year-old righty has never held before.
Eovaldi, who is recovering from arthroscopic surgery to remove loose bodies in his right elbow, struggled with his command and control while making just four starts in April, getting hit to the tune of a 6.00 ERA and 7.12 FIP. That comes after last year’s strong rebound from his second Tommy John surgery, during which he threw 111 innings with a 3.81 ERA, 3.60 FIP, and 2.2 WAR. Integrating a relatively new cut fastball into his arsenal, he set career bests with a 22.2% strikeout rate and 4.4% walk rate. As Jeff Sullivan pointed out last November, his penchant for pounding the strike zone with such precision is rare among pitchers with such high velocity — and oh, can he bring it. According to Pitch Info, his average fastball velo of 97.4 was tied for third among all starters with at least 50 innings.
Eovaldi has rarely pitched out of the bullpen during his eight-year major league career, not only never notching a save in eight regular season relief appearances — four with the Dodgers as a rookie in 2011, three with the Yankees in an exile from the rotation in 2016, and one last year — but never even pitching in a save situation.
That said, he shined amid his crash course in high-leverage relief work last October, making four appearances during Boston’s championship run, two of them in save situations and one in extra innings. He threw 1.1 scoreless innings in front of Craig Kimbrel in the ALCS Game 5 clincher against the Astros, two days after making a strong six-inning start, then added scoreless innings in Games 1 and 2 of the World Series against the Dodgers, and pitched the final six innings of the 18-inning epic Game 3, taking the loss when he served up a solo homer to Max Muncy but winning the hearts of New England for his gutsy, 97-pitch effort. That was the only earned run he allowed in 9.1 relief innings; he yielded four hits and walked one while striking out seven.
“He’s a guy that we love,” said Dombrowski as the Red Sox were closing in on re-signing Eovaldi via a four-year, $68 million deal in December.
By targeting a bullpen role, Eovaldi can forgo the extra weeks it takes to build to a starter’s pitch count and address a more acute need. Given that they were already more than $30 million above the Competitive Balance Tax threshold, the Red Sox chose not to spend significantly on bullpen help to replace Kimbrel and Joe Kelly, both of whom departed in free agency. But by relying upon in-house options — and choosing to go with the dreaded “closer by committee” instead of anointing a successor to Kimbrel — they’ve paid dearly for that decision. Their bullpen entered Wednesday ranked fifth in the AL in FIP (4.17) but eighth in ERA (4.44). While they own the league’s highest strikeout rate (27.4%), they also have the fourth-highest walk rate; their 1.25 home runs allowed per nine, for as gaudy as it is, is sixth-best. The Sox have lost seven games they led after seven innings, tied with the Mariners for the major league high, while their 17 blown saves are an AL high. Sunday’s debacle, in which Marcus Walden, Matt Barnes, and Josh Taylor blew a 4-2 lead by combining to allow nine seventh-inning runs, looms large; the Sox left London trailing the Yankees by 11 games instead of nine. At 45-40, they’re now 10 back in the AL East, and 1.5 out of the second Wild Card spot, with playoff odds of 58.6%, down about 20 points from a month ago.
Six different Red Sox pitchers have notched saves, with Ryan Brasier (seven), Barnes (four),and Brandon Workman (three) the only players with more than one. Brasier notched six of those saves in a three-week span in April, but his overall performance (3.41 ERA, 4.73 FIP, 1.57 HR/9) has been uneven. Barnes owns a healthy 2.86 FIP but has been seared by a .373 BABIP en route to a 4.93 ERA. His six blown saves are tied for the major league lead, though to be fair, only two have come in the ninth inning, when Cora intended him to close the game out, as opposed to the seventh or eighth, when he was simply caught holding the bag while giving up the lead. Workman has numbers you might expect from a closer (1.70 ERA, 2.89 FIP, 35.8% strikeout rate) but has been beset by a 17.6% walk rate, the highest in the AL among pitchers with at least 20 innings.
So yes, the Sox clearly need bullpen help. Eovaldi seems like a solution worth trying, in part because when healthy his velocity should play up even higher. Per Brooks Baseball, his fastball averaged 99.1 mph in his four October relief appearances, and 100.3 if you exclude the six-inning one. He was clocked as high as 102.2 mph in his appearance against Houston, though via Statcast (which uses a different starting point for its measurements) it was “only” 101.6 mph on this strikeout of Alex Bregman:
Here’s 101.1 (Statcast’s measurement) against Justin Turner in the 12th inning of Game 3:
Still, questions abound. How quickly can Eovaldi return? How well can he withstand pitching back-to-back days? How will he simplify his arsenal (four-seamer, cutter, splitter, curve, and slider) in a relief role? Will he help the team more in that capacity than by joining a rotation in which two of the front four (Eduardo Rodriguez and Rick Porcello) have ERAs in the vicinity of 5.00, and in which five other fifth starters have combined for a 6.57 ERA and 4.53 FIP while averaging about 3.1 innings per turn?
Even if Eovaldi returns on the day the All-Star break ends — which seems unlikely given that he hasn’t begun a rehab assignment — the Red Sox will have less than three weeks to get preliminary answers to those questions before the July 31 trade deadline arrives. It adds up to a lot of pressure to put on an injured player about to enter an unfamiliar role, and while the ingredients for it to work are there, it’s not hard to see how this can backfire.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
it’s been Russian roulette all year so why stop now? Hmm, I wonder if the Russians are involved….
His contract had recency bias written all over it, and it was obvious at the time. While I think this is a sensible solution given his (brief) success in the role last year and their dearth of options in the bullpen, it also begs some questions.
Is this a short-term solution for them? Or do they plan on using him in a bullpen role beyond this season? I’d guess his effectiveness in the role will dictate that to some extent, and if he’s successful, critics likely won’t mind much.
That said, it still is a bit head-scratching. Sign a player with a limited track record of modest success and a lengthy injury history to $17mil/yr, and send him to the bullpen after a couple bad starts and another injury. Maybe they should have just resigned Kimbrel, or any number of the other options that were available.
I’d imagine he gets another shot at starting next year regardless of his bullpen success. Porcello will be gone leaving the Sox with only 3 SPs. They should have a bit more payroll available next year but how they choose to spend may also be dictated by the ROS performance of the team as well as other contract decisions i.e. JD opt out and Mookie’s arb number.
As for the contract Eo got, call it recency bias but $17M doesn’t go all that far in baseball anymore (Matt Harvey is making $11M base this year…granted only for 1 year). Porcello’s contract is a good point of reference for Eo since they are both 3/4 starters. Porcello got more because he had a much better track record of health and the market was still a bit better for veterans at the time. But at $17Mx4, the health risk is baked in. The team felt Eo made improvements in the second half of last year that would carry over and also like him as a clubhouse presence. MLBTR also reported that the Angels and Phillies heavily interested so the Sox weren’t bidding against themselves even if he preferred to return there.
Think about this, how much would Syndagaard get on the open market today? He has similar health concerns, but has far more upside than Eo. Strasburg just feels like the right comparison here which would put Thor in line for something like 7 years and $25M or more even with similar health concerns, but of course much greater upside.
My point isn’t to compare Eo to Thor or Strasburg, but more that Eo is the type of player you get for $17M at this point.
But, is he? People seem to overrate Eovaldi for some reason.
For a recent comparison, Lance Lynn got 3yr/$30mil. Lynn is older, but both debuted in 2011 before getting their first extended chance in 2012.
Lynn was a 2.9 fWAR last year in 156.2. Eovaldi was 2.2 in 111,0. Eovaldi was about 7% more valuable on a per inning basis. Lynn had a FIP/xFIP of 3.84/3.98 compared to Eovaldi’s 3.60/3.67. Again, Eovaldi was better, but not demonstratively.
You could make the argument that Eovaldi was trending up, and Lynn was trending down, but that’s where the recency bias comes in. Eovaldi’s age 29 breakout included 111.0 IP, a 3.81 ERA and 22.2 K%. Hardly overwhelming stuff. He’s still a pitcher who has only cracked 155.0 IP ONCE, and 150.0 IP TWICE. He’s got a career 4.21 ERA, and while FIP/xFIP are slightly kinder, SIERA has him at 4.22.
Lynn, on the other hand, had a relatively down 2017 coming off of his TJ surgery, but had amassed 9.9 fWAR in three seasons prior to the surgery (Eovaldi’s best healthy three year stretch being worth 7.2 fWAR). 2018 was a bit up and down, as he was late to sign, but he, like Eovaldi, improved as the year went on. He’d also shown a willingness to pitch out of the bullpen, and was a versatile, effective weapon for the Yankees.
So how different are these guys? It seems like you can get the type of player Eo is for $10mil/yr if they didn’t just help win you a World Series.
I think it’s less recency bias than big fastball bias.
Yes to big fastball bias, as well “starters frame” . Shoulda been a lights out closer day 1. So many times teams try to have these guys work as starters. This dude would have 10 war as a reliever and probably been a better trade chip, but you need to fill your innings i guess.
We’re in the era of small sample sizes, there has to be some recency bias when guys can seemingly change their profiles overnight. It’s also much more defensible to bet on the 29 year old coming off one of his best stretches than a 32 year old who has alternated over then underperforming his FIP in consecutive years.
The Sox probably overpaid by a few mil per year for Eo. His biggest advantage is youth and whether or not that should really be such a significant factor is certainly debatable but this was the cost to retain a guy they believed had meaningfully improved. Was it the absolute best use of those funds? Probably not. But large market teams can afford those risks.
Lynn may also have debatably been underpaid and the Rangers simply saw good value considering JA Happ pulled in 2 years $34M on career numbers similar to both Lynn and Eo while most recently sporting a flashy 2.69 ERA unsupported by a 4.21 FIP. Granted Happ has also been durable but is also the oldest of the trio.
If you’re weighing the recent, smaller sample over the larger samples of and throughout a player’s career, I don’t know that you’re doing it right.
It’s just one example, but clearly the Red Sox were over-influenced by Eovaldi’s second half and postseason. Beyond his career track record coming into last year, people forget (or overlook) that he was mediocre in the first half with the Rays (4.26/4.28 ERA/FIP in 57.0 IP). That was in three more innings than he pitched in the regular season in Boston, and with the cutter.
I agree that teams can and should take risks, and certain teams are more equipped to withstand the fallout of said decisions. I just think we’re looking at a really good example as to why you should not let recency bias impact decision making.
There was considerably and objectively more evidence that Eovaldi was an average-to-above-average pitcher than that he was the x-factor he showed down the stretch last year. The Red Sox failed to identify that, or, more likely, chose to ignore it, and it’s burning them. Meanwhile, the Rangers shrewdly spotted a value.
Now, it’s still early. Lynn is likely due a bit of regression, particularly because he’s pitching in Texas, and Eovaldi’s barely pitched (part of my point). But I said it when they signed him and I’ll continue to say it until he proves me wrong – I don’t think that Nathan Eovaldi was worth that contract.
With all the talk of Kimbrel his start is a bit, umm concerning. He was throwing 94mph fastballs yesterday.
A couple of things here. First, and commentators in general seem to have stopped mentioning this, Eovaldi was averse to pitching out of the BP simply because he thought it would be more stressful on his arm than starting. After the TJs, you can see his line of thought. I assume (none of us know) that this is all squared up between management, doctors, agent and player. In which case, $17 million for half a year of Eovaldi is still better value than $17 million for half a year of Kimbrel, given that there’s still three years of starting left on the contract.
Second, which is interesting to me — counting stats don’t usually stand out. Certainly not for an individual. But for a team, over half a season, seventeen blown saves, and seven games lost after a lead in the 7th, are fairly indicative. I haven’t been able to drag the equivalents up for (the obvious suspects) the Rays and the Yankees, but I’m guessing there’s probably four or five games lost right there, just based on regression to average.
If Eovaldi can lead the BP (counting stats are a team thing) back to where they win those four to five games — this is absolutely the right thing to do.
With point 1 being the qualifying note, of course.
I’m not even sure that the pitching mix matters. (No predictive attempt: just an observation.) If the cutter is working, that might be a good way to get ahead of batters. Any off-speed pitch would keep them honest. And the (not otherwise killer) four seamer might actually work as a take-out pitch. Or not. We shall see.
Strangely enough, the standard Sabermetrics numbers, for once, almost certainly do not play into this decision. (If the Sox had a better bullpen, they would. But they don’t, so they don’t.)
Punting the bullpen was a crazy plan when the team is otherwise so talented.