Jump to content
Frobby

Grade the Gausman Deal

Grade the Gausman Deal  

187 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. What’s your grade for the Gausman deal


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 8/11/2018 at 01:24

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I added a point after you posted.  Just because a pitcher is not a high strikeout pitcher does that make him a bad pitcher?

In this day and age?  Kinda.

But with Gausman's stuff, he should be a a high strikeout pitcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I added a point after you posted.  Just because a pitcher is not a high strikeout pitcher does that make him a bad pitcher?

It is rather rare for a pitcher with a significantly lower than league average K rate to be successful in the current game for any length of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

In this day and age?  Kinda.

But with Gausman's stuff, he should be a a high strikeout pitcher.

No trickery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wildcard said:

I don't understand what point you are driving at.  My point is that when supported but a good offense, defense and pen as he was in 2014 and 2016 Gausman showed he was a good pitcher.   In 2017 and 2018 when the offense, defense and pen were worse it affect his numbers and made him look worse but in fact he may have been the same good pitcher, he just had worse support.

You are throwing a lot of numbers at me but I am not sure what you are trying to prove.

The  pen decline is not only about wins and loses record.  Its also about ERA.  Gausman leaves two runs on base in a inning that he is pulled.   The pen comes in and lets those two runners score.  Its added to his ERA.  That was not happening as much in 2014 and 2016 because the pen was better back then. 

The part I’m not getting is what the offense and bullpen have to do with Gausman being a good pitcher.    For what it’s worth, Gausman bequeathed 18 baserunners to the bullpen this year in Baltimore, and only two of them scored.   That’s excellent, and so if anything, the bullpen kept Gausman’s ERA from being worse than it was.

Defense, you can argue.    Gausman's FIP was higher than his  ERA; his xFIP was lower (in both cases, the difference wasn’t very much).  My overall point is that really good pitchers don’t allow 1.5 homers per 9 innings, and that has nothing to do with fielding.   

So, I wish Gausman success in Atlanta, but it will take at least a full year of markedly better results for me to conclude that there’s any real difference in his pitching.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep thinking back to what may have been if  Kris Bryant doesn't retweak his shoulder and have to go to the DL for an extended time. Davide Bote was being dangled to a numbers of teams, but when Bryant went down the Cubs had to keep him to fill in. Not sure what it would have looked like, but I don't think it's  unrealistic that Bote would have been an Oriole as the Cubs were interested in Gausman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Its 50-50.

He will either win the Cy Young or blow his elbow and need TJ and be out 18 months,.

At least we've narrowed it down to two options. But that sounds about right. I lean toward the "KG is going to be very, very good and we should have gotten more" side. I understand the frustration and that people have given up on him becoming a TOR starter. But I was disappointed that we didn't receive a top-10 prospect.

That said, Encarnacion looks very promising. He could be a sleeper. I guess we shall see. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

In this day and age?  Kinda.

But with Gausman's stuff, he should be a a high strikeout pitcher.

I agree, when your stuff is hyped to be TOR stuff, then usually you expect that person to have an assortment of pitches they can throw for strikes and be a high strikeout artist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bradysburns said:

At least we've narrowed it down to two options. But that sounds about right. I lean toward the "KG is going to be very, very good and we should have gotten more" side. I understand the frustration and that people have given up on him becoming a TOR starter. But I was disappointed that we didn't receive a top-10 prospect.

That said, Encarnacion looks very promising. He could be a sleeper. I guess we shall see. 

 

I think the Orioles gave up on him, achieving what he could be. But, thats just my own opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Gausman has a great career. I hope he pitches better. I think he’s who he is and will have a good career, but I would enjoy seeing him improve. No hard feelings now that he’s an ex-Oriole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

I hope Gausman has a great career. I hope he pitches better. I think he’s who he is and will have a good career, but I would enjoy seeing him improve. No hard feelings now that he’s an ex-Oriole. 

For me it’s not an issue of hard feelings.   But it bothers us when pitchers who spent a long time with us leave and then dramatically improve when they go elsewhere, because it suggests that there’s something wrong with the way that we develop, coach and manage pitchers. 

Frankly, I think the topic tends to get a little bit overblown.    Many of the guys who left here who have been the topic of this type of discussion had very temporary success and then fell off the map. But Arrieta is a big, gaping wound and we see everything through that prism.   

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frobby said:

For me it’s not an issue of hard feelings.   But it bothers us when pitchers who spent a long time with us leave and then dramatically improve when they go elsewhere, because it suggests that there’s something wrong with the way that we develop, coach and manage pitchers. 

Frankly, I think the topic tends to get a little bit overblown.    Many of the guys who left here who have been the topic of this type of discussion had very temporary success and then fell off the map. But Arrieta is a big, gaping wound and we see everything through that prism.   

It certainly does suggest that. And it goes back over a decade now, easily. I can remember just about every over-hyped pitching prospect going back to Mike Paradis and before. 

That's the other part of the equation. We've spent so many of our earlier picks on pitchers over the years... and gotten essentially nothing back in return (other than replacement-level performance or thereabouts, and that's in cases that "worked out"). 

I suspect it's a general problem from top to bottom: poor scouting, poor development. Maybe we'll see that changing with the next phase... hopefully starting with GrayRod. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bradysburns said:

It certainly does suggest that. And it goes back over a decade now, easily. I can remember just about every over-hyped pitching prospect going back to Mike Paradis and before. 

That's the other part of the equation. We've spent so many of our earlier picks on pitchers over the years... and gotten essentially nothing back in return (other than replacement-level performance or thereabouts, and that's in cases that "worked out"). 

I suspect it's a general problem from top to bottom: poor scouting, poor development. Maybe we'll see that changing with the next phase... hopefully starting with GrayRod. 

Hopefully starting before GrayRod.   I think DL Hall is the Next Great Hope.    2.24 ERA and K/9 over 9 at age 19 at Delmarva.    I think Akin and Lowther might be solid contributors to our rotation, too, debuting over the next year or two before Hall arrives.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the guys and Fangraphs really loved the haul we got for Gausman, Machado, and Schoop.  This is from an Eric Longenhagen chat yesterday:

2:03
Snooker: If you were to rank the various organizations based on player development, who would be up top, who would be at the bottom, and where would the Tigers fit?

 

 
2:06
Eric A Longenhagen: Top ones for me are CLE, LAD, NYY, hard not to put BAL at the bottom.  Some orgs, and I think DET falls into this category, are tough to evaluate through this lens because their roster situations have made it difficult.

 

I have a hard time believing this, even before the trades.  I'd like to chalk this up to lazy writing, just giving the easy and typical answer without considering recent events and developments.  It makes me wonder what is necessary to gain respect from the propsect writing community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ToadB22 said:

Looks like the guys and Fangraphs really loved the haul we got for Gausman, Machado, and Schoop.  This is from an Eric Longenhagen chat yesterday:

2:03
Snooker: If you were to rank the various organizations based on player development, who would be up top, who would be at the bottom, and where would the Tigers fit?

 

 
2:06
Eric A Longenhagen: Top ones for me are CLE, LAD, NYY, hard not to put BAL at the bottom.  Some orgs, and I think DET falls into this category, are tough to evaluate through this lens because their roster situations have made it difficult.

 

I have a hard time believing this, even before the trades.  I'd like to chalk this up to lazy writing, just giving the easy and typical answer without considering recent events and developments.  It makes me wonder what is necessary to gain respect from the propsect writing community.

Hire respectable and responsible reporters. :):):):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Spring Training Stats

Baseball Savant Stats

Minor League Stats







  • Posts

    • I'd be genuinely thrilled to see Bleier at the ASG
    • You're just cherry picking the stats to prove your point.   
    • They're paying more-or-less Harper money for a player of similar age but who has Harper's one peak year almost every year.  Trout is #1 on the all time bb-ref WAR list through his age.  You can go down 50 or 75 spots below Trout and you have 80% of the players there as clear HOFers.   Trout's peers are Cobb, Mantle, Hornsby, ARod, Foxx, Ott, Griffey Jr, Speaker, Vaughn, Aaron, Frank... If you're not willing to pay going rates for Mike Trout, you would have also been willing to let any of those players walk because they were too risky.   Here's a list of players whose entire careers were worth less than Trout has been so far: Winfield, Ashburn, Billy Williams, Sliding Billy Hamilton, Lou Boudreau, Home Run Baker, Jesse Burkett, Harmon Killebrew, Mike Piazza, Vlad, Yogi, Hank Greenberg, Willie Stargell, Bill Dickey, Joe Medwick, Willie Keeler, George Sisler, Jimmy Collins, Elmer Flick.  There are nine Hall of Famers whose entire careers were worth less than half of Mike Trout's first eight seasons.
    • I love all the information available, especially on prospects. There's a great wealth of knowledge among everyone who contributes, and I appreciate that.
    • I agree with you that Beane and Moneyball was really influential...but it only sorta', kinda' worked.  2002 Stats: Hudson 238 IP ERA+145 Zito 229 IP ERA+ 158 Mulder 207 IP ERA+125 Lidle 192IP ERA+112 Zito and Mulder were first round draft picks. I didn't read the book, but I loved the movie. But I think the truth is that analytics had way, way, way less to do with the success of those teams than the hype would lead some to believe. If so, then the influence of the book on the spread of analytics may be more to do with hype and spin than an actual analysis of the effects of analytics. I find that fun.  It will be interesting to see how analytics are viewed in ten to fifteen years. I think in some cases the "success" of analytics on team wins could be luck much like how some scouts back in the day made a name for themselves by signing a player that turned out to be a great player. A big part of that is getting lucky with injuries, etc. I wonder if the same thing might be happening with some of the models that supposedly said pick player A over player B in a draft, etc. Only time will tell and maybe not even then (pretty soon everybody will be doing pretty much the same thing with analytics and there may be no relative advantages as it becomes part of the status quo).   
    • At least. The NFL cap is also complicated in that signing bonuses are prorated for each year of the contract (e.g. $20M bonus on a 4 year contract counts for $5M each year) and those prorated things come due right away when a player is traded or cut. So for example Joe Flacco was traded and the Ravens aren't paying him anything this year but he still counts $16M against the Ravens' cap this year. But also they just signed Earl Thomas, he'll get a $20M signing bonus and a $2M salary this year but he only counts $7M against the cap. Maybe it all sort of evens out but who knows.
    • No one cares.  Except us.  And we're not surprised.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...