Thomas Carrieri is wrong: Matt Barnes should not be released by the Boston Red Sox yet

Matt Barnes on May 26th at the Chicago White Sox after giving up a bases-loaded walk to Jake Burger. (Photo from MLB.com Video: https://www.mlb.com/gameday/red-sox-vs-white-sox/2022/05/26/661486#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=661486)

NOTE: All statistics in this story are from after the Monday, May 30th, 2022 game and before the Tuesday, May 31st, 2022 game and all statistics are not meant to imply anything that happened on Tuesday, May 31st or Wednesday, June 1st's Boston Red Sox games. This story was posted on Friday, June 3rd, 2022.

By: Evan Troxel

Matt Barnes is not the worst pitcher on the Boston Red Sox right now.

And no, he is not just better than Josh Winckowski (who made his Major League debut on Saturday night/afternoon depending on where at in the United States you live).

He is better than Ryan Brasier and Hansel Robles too!

My time would probably be more worthwhile to talk about relievers Kutter Crawford or Phillips Valdez since they are basically on the bubble of being sent down to Worcester again or outrighted to Worcester or released (if they haven’t already experienced one or more of those things this regular season) or to defend starters Rich Hill or Nick Pivetta (so they don’t get demoted to the bullpen). But I’m not going to do that today.

I’m going to talk about why Matt Barnes should stay in the Major Leagues (at least for the foreseeable future).

If Boston really wants to cut him, they should do it when Matt Barnes is no longer eligible to be on a postseason roster with a different team other than the Boston Red Sox.

So, in other words, last year’s Jose Iglesias treatment, where he was ineligible to be part of the postseason because he wasn’t on a postseason teams’ roster by September 1st.

Every Boston Red Sox fan knows that Matt Barnes really hasn’t been his dominant pitching self not only for this season but since last year in the regular season too!

The fact that Barnes has not been sent down to the minors should probably tell everybody something.

That something is that Barnes is too valuable to cut right now.

Commentary or talk or whatever you want to call it by @Thomas_Carrieri on Twitter of saying that Matt Barnes should be cut by the Boston Red Sox is incorrect analysis right now.

It is subjective and not objective analysis by Carrieri. It is probably based on his feelings as a Red Sox fan and subjective analysis (or at least it seems to appear and feel that way).

But as I will show and explain in great detail in this story, Carrieri’s analysis is probably heavily weighed by flawed objective statistics.

I have actually followed Carrieri on Twitter for probably less than a month now but I have seen his Tweets for a longer period than that (let’s just say since the start of the regular season even though I don’t think it has even been that long).

I don’t just go to his Twitter profile to read all of his Tweets like it is one of my ten or twenty favorite people on Earth either. I’m not that interested in his content yet!

So I guess I really don’t know how long he has been hammering and yammering all of his main points this regular season on Twitter.

I am also assuming that he wants Ryan Brasier to be cut too, since Brasier is the one guy who almost every Red Sox fan can agree on that something needs to happen to him whether he be sent down to Worcester, outrighted to Worcester or cut.

I guess before I really get going on this story, I just want to say my opinions of Carrieri are not extremist because I really don’t know him very well yet.

Should Brasier be cut? Probably.

He doesn’t have lots of experience in the Major Leagues yet (like seven to ten years or more) and he obviously isn’t a star or even a superstar yet (because much of America still probably doesn’t even know who he is or that he even exists as a person).

Will Brasier be cut? Probably not.

Also, I don’t know why the Boston Red Sox would want to cut Matt Barnes right now anyway.

Today is June 3rd and no serious roster moves in terms of the Boston Red Sox relievers are going to happen before something like June 25th anyway.

Also, these roster moves may be pushed back five days, a week or ten days because the regular season did not start on time. In fact, I’m not sure any serious roster moves are going to happen before the All-Star Break in July.

Who are you going to get in return in a trade if you are the Boston Red Sox right now?

The Red Sox literally have almost nothing to trade for (to sacrifice) this entire regular season.

If Boston trades a superstar or a star to another team, they aren’t serious about winning the World Series this year (or perhaps in the next few years either) unless they essentially get like a rental player (which would more than likely be a star or someone who is close to being a star).

They could trade Xander Bogaerts, but they probably aren’t going to do that.

They could trade Rafael Devers, but they aren’t going to do that until the Xander situation is resolved.

They could trade Chris Sale, but Sale is on the injured list right now and injured…again!

They could trade Nathan Eovaldi, but they aren’t going to do that until they have no shot at the postseason.

Every team in the Major Leagues (not named Boston) are going to make the Red Sox eat (other MLB teams not named Boston’s) crap (in a trade) or make the Red Sox eat their own food (whether it is good or tastes disgusting).

They don’t want to make the Red Sox better! And they shouldn’t want to make them better!

Most MLB teams probably want to see the Red Sox play like they did in the shortened 2020 regular season. Not good.

...

So why is Matt Barnes better than Ryan Brasier or Hansel Robles? Because he has gotten people out and hasn’t given up runs as frequently as Brasier or Robles!

Based on very true runs (scroll to the end of this story and read about it if you don’t know what very true runs are) and his performance (meaning both the good and the bad regardless if Boston wins any one specific game or not), Ryan Brasier has actually been the worst pitcher on the Boston Red Sox for most of this regular season.

He has been the worst the entire regular season except for on April 8th and 9th and the second-to-last through the fourth-to-last games in May.

So, in other words, the game on May 28th (after the second game), and on May 29th and May 30th. That’s it!

You cannot do any (or much worse) than that!

Josh Winckowski has been the worst pitcher on the Red Sox since after he pitched on Saturday night.

Hansel Robles has been the second-worst pitcher on the Red Sox every day since after the April 29th game (except for one day, May 16th when he was the third-worst) and he has been the third-worst pitcher since after Saturday night’s game (and not including Tuesday’s game).

Matt Barnes has been the third-worst pitcher for every day since after the May 1st game (again, except for May 16th when he was the second-worst) and he has been the fourth-worst pitcher since after Saturday night’s game (and not including Tuesday’s game).

Based on runs and his performance, Barnes has been the worst Boston pitcher every day since after the May 7th game (except for two days, after the May 14th and 15th games) and not since after Saturday night’s game.

Robles has been the 2nd-worst Red Sox pitcher every game since after the April 29th game (except for five days when he was the worst Boston pitcher) and not since Saturday night’s game.

Brasier has been the 3rd-worst Boston pitcher every day since after the May 16th game (and not since Saturday night’s game).

Based on earned runs and his performance, Barnes has been the worst Boston pitcher every single day since after the April 30th game (and not since Saturday night’s game).

Brasier has been the second-worst every single day since after the May 15th game (and not since Saturday night’s game).

Robles has been the third-worst every single day since after the May 13th game (except for three days from after the May 16th through 18th games).

So I think I have shown how flawed runs and earned runs are compared to very true runs.

Matt Barnes has clearly taken the blame for giving up runs that are not 100% his fault.

If you still don’t believe me, just keep learning and reading the remainder of this story.

...

Based on very true runs, Ryan Brasier has actually costed the Red Sox wins more often than Matt Barnes has.

Brasier has lost a sum total of 2.588 games (out of 26 Red Sox losses) this regular season (before Tuesday’s game) and Barnes has lost 2.416 games for Boston this regular season.

Nathan Eovaldi (2.976 actual losses) has beat out Nick Pivetta (2.975 actual losses) for the most actual losses by Red Sox pitchers this regular season followed Tanner Houck 2.591 (actual losses) and then Brasier and Barnes.

Rich Hill (2.025 actual losses), Garrett Whitlock (1.577 actual losses) and Hansel Robles (1.453 actual losses) have also costed Boston wins.

Before Tuesday’s game and still based on very true runs this regular season, both Brasier and Barnes have actually helped Boston lose eight games each by giving up a run(s) in those games.

Nathan Eovaldi and Nick Pivetta have forced the Red Sox to lose five games each and Tanner Houck and Garrett Whitlock have hurt Boston in four games.

Rich Hill and Hansel Robles have costed the Red Sox just 3 wins.

Based on runs, Barnes has actually costed Boston 2.650 wins while Brasier has costed them 1.988 wins.

Nick Pivetta (3.000 actual losses) and Nathan Eovaldi (2.876) have costed the Red Sox the most.

Tanner Houck (2.685 actual losses), Rich Hill (2.100 actual losses), Garrett Whitlock (1.533 actual losses) and Hansel Robles (1.433 actual losses) have made the Red Sox lose a lot too.

Before Tuesday’s game and still based on runs, Barnes has actually helped Boston lose eight games while Brasier has costed the Red Sox six wins.

In fairness to Barnes, he lost seven of those eight games between after the April 15th game and after the May 7th game.

So Barnes has only actually costed the Red Sox once, based on runs given up since after the May 7th game.

Eovaldi and Pivetta have costed Boston five wins.

Houck and Whitlock have costed the Red Sox four wins while Hill and Robles have costed them three times.

As I have shown, runs have benefited Brasier because he only got blamed for six Boston losses when very true runs shows he should be blamed for eight Red Sox losses.

Based on earned runs, Barnes has actually costed the Red Sox 2.750 wins this regular season while Brasier has actually costed them 1.988 wins.

Because of how runs and earned runs as an official statistic are determined in baseball, it makes Barnes look a little bit worse than he actually has been this regular season (and it makes Brasier look a lot better than he has been compared to Brasier’s 2.588 actual losses based on very true runs).

It also makes Nathan Eovaldi and Nick Pivetta look worse (just to name a few) too. Nathan Eovaldi has actually helped the Red Sox lose 3.100 games (out of 24 earned run losses for Boston this regular season) and Nick Pivetta is at 3.067 losses.

Earned runs have also made Tanner Houck (2.685 actual losses) and Rich Hill (2.100 actual losses) look worse while it has made guys like Garrett Whitlock (.654 actual losses) and Hansel Robles (.611 actual losses) look a lot better than they actually are compared to actual losses based on very true runs.

Based on earned runs, Barnes can be blamed for seven Boston losses while Brasier can be blamed for six Red Sox losses.

Barnes only gets blamed for seven losses because he didn’t give up any earned runs in one Boston loss on April 26th (but he did give up a run). So he cannot be blamed for a Red Sox loss if he didn’t give up any earned runs.

Still based on earned runs, Eovaldi and Pivetta get blamed for five Red Sox losses, Houck gets blamed for four losses, Hill and Whitlock get blamed for three losses and Robles two losses.

...

Before Tuesday night’s game, the very true run average for Matt Barnes is 7.68 and better than Kutter Crawford’s 8.02, Ryan Brasier’s 8.05 or even Josh Winckowski’s 12.00.

Barnes’s very true run average has been ranked 16th on the team since after the May 14th game and it has stayed that way ever since (with the exception of four days when it was ranked 15th between after the May 17th through May 20th games).

His very true run average has been better than Ryan Brasier, Kutter Crawford and Josh Winckowski’s every day since after the May 14th game.

Hansel Robles has been in the top 9 in very true run average since after the May 15th game and Phillips Valdez is ranked 14th while Hirokazu Sawamura is ranked 15th on the Red Sox.

Every single day since after the May 15th game, not including Winckowski, based on very true run average, Brasier has been the worst pitcher on the Red Sox this regular season.

So based on very true run average alone, Matt Barnes is not the worst pitcher on the Red Sox.

Based on run average (like earned run average, but it is for runs, not earned runs), Barnes did become the worst Red Sox pitcher after Monday’s game (not including Winckowski) with a 9.53 run average.

Crawford’s current run average is 9.28 and Winckowski’s is 12.00.

Again, all except for four days between after the May 13th through 16th games, Barnes was ranked the 17th-best pitcher every single day for Boston since after the May 4th game.

Until after Monday’s game, Crawford was ranked 18th in run average every single day since after the May 1st game (except for four days between after May 13th through 16th games when he was ranked 17th).

Before Tuesday’s game, Crawford was ranked 17th, Phillips Valdez was 16th and Brasier was 15th in run average.

Barnes’s ERA was not severely impacted by what he did not do right on Monday night.

He was ranked 17th on the Red Sox before Monday night’s game (out of 19 since after Saturday night’s game and out of 18 before Saturday night’s game) and he has stayed in that spot. Barnes’s ERA has been ranked 17th on the Red Sox every day since after the May 4th game (except for three days).

So to say his now 7.94 ERA (and before Monday’s game it was 6.75) as a reason he should be cut right now is an emotional reason (and not an objectively reason) to want to cut him.

And I know that Kutter Crawford is ranked 18th in ERA for Boston since after the May 1st game (and ranked last on the Red Sox in ERA every day since then until after Josh Winckowski pitched on Saturday night and he then became ranked last).

Crawford’s ERA has been 8.44 since after the May 13th game and it was over 10.00 between after the May 1st game and after the May 12th game.

All except for two games, Barnes has been ranked 17th in ERA since after the May 7th game.

Brasier was ranked 16th in ERA every single day (except for after the May 24th and 25th games when he was ranked 17th) until after Monday night’s game.

Before Tuesday night’s game, Phillips Valdez is now ranked 16th in ERA while Brasier is 15th.

So again, runs and earned runs have made Matt Barnes look worse than he has actually been this regular season.

...

If you look at very true runs, it is obvious why Ryan Brasier is the worst pitcher on the Red Sox and not Matt Barnes.

Boston would have lost 3.921 games with Ryan Brasier this regular season if they lost every single game he gave up runs in (whether the Red Sox actually won that game or not).

With Barnes, Boston only would have lost 2.999 games.

Based on very true runs, the Red Sox would have lost the following amount of games for each pitcher if Boston actually lost every single game that pitcher gave up a run(s) in:

Nick Pivetta (6.475 actual losses)

Nathan Eovaldi (5.833 actual losses)

Rich Hill (4.692 actual losses)

Garrett Whitlock (3.827 actual losses)

NOTABLE: Michael Wacha (3.381 actual losses)

Tanner Houck (3.174 actual losses)

Hansel Robles (2.988 actual losses)

According to runs, Brasier would have lost 2.155 games to Barnes’ 3.269 games if the Red Sox lost every game each pitcher gave up a run(s) in this regular season.

Based on runs, Boston would have lost the following amount of games for each pitcher if the Red Sox actually lost every single game that pitcher gave up a run(s) in:

Nick Pivetta (6.500 actual losses)

Nathan Eovaldi (5.661 actual losses)

Rich Hill (4.767 actual losses)

Garrett Whitlock (3.950 actual losses)

Tanner Houck (3.685 actual losses)

NOTABLE: Michael Wacha (3.381 actual losses)

Hansel Robles (2.933 actual losses)

According to earned runs, Brasier would have lost 2.155 games to Barnes’ 3.369 games if the Red Sox lost every game each pitcher gave up a run(s) in this regular season.

Based on earned runs, Boston would have lost the following amount of games for each pitcher if the Red Sox actually lost every single game that pitcher gave up a run(s) in:

Nick Pivetta (6.567 actual losses)

Nathan Eovaldi (6.052 actual losses)

Rich Hill (4.767 actual losses)

NOTABLE: Michael Wacha (4.048 actual losses)

Tanner Houck (3.685 actual losses)

Garrett Whitlock (3.071 actual losses)

Hansel Robles (2.194 actual losses)

So it is obvious that runs and earned runs are very flawed statistics and everyone already knows why for at least one reason (if not multiple reasons).

Brasier likely hurt his cause by being an awful pitcher early on in the regular season.

On April 11th, when Brasier gave up the two-run homer to Javier Baez (Javy Baez) of the Detroit Tigers, he threw that pitch above the strike zone and basically over the middle of the plate (it was barely not over the middle of the plate, it was more inside, to the right-handed hitter Baez).

So it wasn’t an easy pitch to hit, since it was a high strike and thrown at 93 mph, but it was a pitch that could have been thrown more inside (or a lot more away) to Baez.

So in saying what I just said, I guess the future of baseball statistics and analysis are going to be what each pitcher’s ERA, batting average against (and many other statistics) could be/would have been if X pitcher’s obvious (or extremely obvious) mistakes are not counted against him.

Obviously, that was not a bad pitch Brasier threw (to most batters, being a pitch above the strike zone), but you can’t throw that pitch to an aggressive hitter like Baez who doesn’t seem to really care (when Baez is a baseball player who will take what’s given if you are going to give it to him and seems to me to have a lazy attitude and will cut corners when he can easily get away with it).

Carrieri might be right that Barnes is a worse pitcher than Brasier right now since a specific date on the calendar.

But is Brasier not the worst Boston pitcher since the start of the regular season? No.

It is so obvious that Ryan Brasier is the worst pitcher on the Boston Red Sox right now (not including Josh Winckowski).

Finally, during the baseball offseason or whenever, I think it would interesting (and cool) to see Matt Barnes in a future episode of the TV show on CBS called “FBI” in which he could meet his doppelganger Zeeko Zaki.

Can we make this happen?

...

MORE NOTES: Very true run average and true run average include all runs scored. So they are not like earned runs. Very true run average is more accurate than true run average because it doesn't blame a pitcher for allowing a baserunner to start on second base in extra innings. True run average blames the pitcher for allowing a baserunner to start on second base to start extra innings. Other than that, very true run average and true run average are more accurate and truthful than earned run average (earned runs) and run average (runs).

...

EXPLANATION OF ACTUAL WINS AND LOSSES (FOR TRUE RUNS AND VERY TRUE RUNS):

Actual won-lost records in the 2022 regular season for Boston Red Sox pitchers depending on the Boston Red Sox win/loss result for any one specific game

The "wins" are all games that the Boston Red Sox actually won. The "wins" are percentages of innings pitched for each pitcher. All of the percentages of innings pitched (of games the Red Sox actually won) are then added together to get "wins", which is what you see below. The "losses" can be thought of as the percentage of runs any one pitcher allowed the opposing team to score. These percentages of how many runs a pitcher allows in any one game to score are then added together for every game (and only of the games that the Red Sox actually lost) to get "losses". Pitchers who start any extra inning are blamed for allowing a baserunner to start the inning at second base (and any other additional bases they allow that baserunner to advance) if that baserunner eventually scores. The winning percentage is wins divided by wins plus losses.

The above paragraph talks about true runs and not very true runs when a pitcher allows a run(s). Otherwise, everything else can apply to anything that has to do with true runs and very true runs.

NOTE: For the purposes of this story alone, no pitcher is blamed for allowing a baserunner to start any extra inning at second base (but any pitcher who pitches in extra innings will be blamed for allowing that baserunner to advance any additional bases if that baserunner eventually scores). The previous sentence talks about very true runs and not true runs.

EXPLANATION OF A PITCHER'S PERFORMANCE (FOR TRUE RUNS AND VERY TRUE RUNS):

Actual won-lost records in the 2022 regular season for Boston Red Sox pitchers not depending on whether the Boston Red Sox actually win any one specific game or not.

In other words, this tells the complete picture of their entire regular season (the good and the bad) of how many people the pitcher got out (innings pitched) and how many runs the pitcher truthfully gave up (which is more accurate than runs or even earned runs given up). So to make this more easy for people to understand, starting pitchers (or the previous pitcher) don't 100% get blamed for the inherited runner(s) that the reliever(s) (or the next pitcher to pitch) allows to score. The starter (or previous pitcher) will get 25%, 50% or 75% blame for giving up one run instead, for an inherited runner that eventually scores.

Also, a pitcher can get a partial win and a partial loss in the same game. So pitchers that throw more innings pitched are going to get a higher percentage of partial wins and pitchers who give up more runs are going to get a higher percentage of partial losses. So if one pitcher pitches a complete game he will get one win (regardless of the team's win/loss result) and if the pitcher's team actually loses that same game in which he was the only pitcher who pitched for his team, he will also get credit for one loss.

The only time any pitcher cannot take a loss or a partial loss is if the winning team doesn't give up any runs to the team they are playing.

Basically, this is truly giving credit where credit is due among pitchers only.

The "wins" are percentages of innings pitched for each game for each pitcher. All of the percentages of each game are then added together and the sum total of all percentages for each game are "wins" (whether the Red Sox actually won that specific game or not) and are what you see below. The "losses" can be thought of as the percentage of runs that any one pitcher allowed the opposing team to score for each game. All of the percentages of runs given up for each game are then added together and the sum total of all of those numbers are the "losses" and what you see below. The "losses" presented here are represented as the total number of potential losses that a pitcher could have if the Red Sox actually lost every single game in which a pitcher gave up a run(s). The winning percentage is wins divided by wins plus losses.

NOTE: To not confuse people, in true runs, extra-inning pitchers do get blamed for allowing an opposing baserunner to start any extra inning at second base, if they score. In true runs, I have always blamed the extra-inning pitcher for allowing an opposing baserunner to start any extra inning at second base, if that baserunner eventually scores.

In very true runs, no pitcher gets blamed for allowing an opposing baserunner to start any extra inning at second base. But any extra-inning pitcher who allows the baserunner to start at second base who eventually scores will get blamed for allowing that baserunner to advance one or two bases if that baserunner eventually scores.