Tim Kurkjian: Arrieta and Matusz looking good

[Frobby]

How does where a player is drafted affect what you think of the guy once he is in the major leagues? It doesn't matter. Plenty of guys in later rounds have become stars. Plenty of players drafted at the top of the first round have been busts.

I never said he was done or should be cut. I said if he doesn't get it turned around in spring training it will probably be the last we see of him as a major league ball player. He is worse than Jo Jo Reyes. Let that sink in for a while.

Calling me the idiot. Most of you don't even go to games but spend you entire life on a message board. And I know what winning teams look like. My first game Brooks was at third and Belanger at Short. Blair in center. And McNally on the mound. It is obvious most you know little about baseball. You undervalue fielding ability. You undervalue making contact and moving the runner along. You don't know the differenance between a quality starter and a guy who isn't major league material.

Look at all you guys supporting Mark Reynolds. He can't field. Has limited range. Terrible clutch hitter. Why do you like him? Because he hits solo home runs when the game is out of reach?

Although I was not the one who called your earlier post idiotic, there is a difference between saying that an opinion you hold is idiotic, and saying that you are an idiot. The first is a bit rude, the second is a violation of the board's rules.

That said, I also go back to the glory days with the Orioles, and I don't think the fact that I was there to see that gives me superior baseball knowledge to someone who didn't. I can find you people who have been fans for the entire time the Orioles have been in existence who really don't know what they are talking about, and I can find you 17-year old kids who know a lot about who is good or isn't.

As to Matusz, the issue isn't just where he was drafted, it is how he pitched prior to 2011. He has shown enough potential where we have to be patient with him even if he struggles this spring. In that scenario, you send him to AAA and hope he finds whatever it was he had previously. The idea that he is doomed forever is just rash.

As to Reynolds, we all know we can't leave him at 3B long-term if he is as bad there as he looked in 2011. But his track record suggests that he can be much better than he was in 2011 in the field -- not that he'll be great, but that he can be acceptable at 3B. He lost weight and Buck is right to try him again at 3B and see what happens. As to his hitting, Reynolds' ratio of solo homers to homers with men on base was right on line with the league average. He hits for a low average, but walks a fair amount and so his OBP is decent. He's a good package if he can field a bit better this year, which I think he can, but we will see.

[Jimbo81]

You do realize that the stats say that Brooks and Ozzie were average hitters with astounding defense, right? The stats say that Brooks' glove by itself was more valuable than some HOFer's entire contributions as a ballplayers.

No no no, what he is talking about are things like grit and passion and the drive to win! You know all the magical stuff that baseball is all about...

[CA-ORIOLE]

Just sit back in your rocking chair and talk about the good ol days.

Seems to me there are a pretty fair amount of stupid people on here that are young. Maybe I should start calling them out. I'm not sure why young, old, gay or whatever needs to be referenced in these discussions. In this case the guy is barely 40 years old. I guess that's old of you're 20. He leans towards observational input over statistics and he makes weak arguments and employs rhetorical nonsense. I get it. Plenty of young posters that do the same thing. I personally consider you as not being very bright or analytical ..... but I typically don't see a reason to say so. Attack the posters logic/argument and not the posters age.

[Sports Guy]

Seems to me there are a pretty fair amount of stupid people on here that are young. Maybe I should start calling them out. I'm not sure why young old, young, gay or whatever needs to be referenced in these discussions. In this case the guy is barely 40 years old. I guess that's old of you're 20. He leans towards observational input over statistics and he makes weak arguments and employs rhetorical nonsense. I get it. Plenty of young posters that do the same thing. I personally consider you as not being very bright or analytical ..... but I typically don't see a reason to say so. Attack the posters logic/argument and not the posters age.

I attacked his age because he was acting like because he saw baseball in the 70s, that he is some freakin genius when he clearly lacks logic and knowledge in most things he discusses.

And when I said that, he hadn't yet said he was in his 40s.

[Frobby]

Seems to me there are a pretty fair amount of stupid people on here that are young. Maybe I should start calling them out. I'm not sure why young old, young, gay or whatever needs to be referenced in these discussions. In this case the guy is barely 40 years old. I guess that's old of you're 20. He leans towards observational input over statistics and he makes weak arguments and employs rhetorical nonsense. I get it. Plenty of young posters that do the same thing. I personally consider you as not being very bright or analytical ..... but I typically don't see a reason to say so. Attack the posters logic/argument and not the posters age.

In fairness, SG was responding to this:

Calling me the idiot. Most of you don't even go to games but spend you entire life on a message board. And I know what winning teams look like. My first game Brooks was at third and Belanger at Short. Blair in center. And McNally on the mound. It is obvious most you know little about baseball. You undervalue fielding ability. You undervalue making contact and moving the runner along. You don't know the differenance between a quality starter and a guy who isn't major league material.

I hate the argument that one guy knows more about baseball because he saw the Orioles when they were good -- even though I spent my entire childhood watching the good Oriole teams.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I attacked his age because he was acting like because he saw baseball in the 70s, that he is some freakin genius when he clearly lacks logic and knowledge in most things he discusses.

And when I said that, he hadn't yet said he was in his 40s.

Then attack his logic and not his age. Pretty simple.

[CA-ORIOLE]

In fairness, SG was responding to this:

I hate the argument that one guy knows more about baseball because he saw the Orioles when they were good -- even though I spent my entire childhood watching the good Oriole teams.

Yeah, I don't see the reference to him being superior by his age, but rather using a comparison to good fielding team based on his experience/observation. That's really not disimilar to what a lot of people do by observational input over statistics or the others that mitigate statistics. Wildcard (and I have no idea how hold he is but I'm guessing fairly young) is a typical example. Not to mention Mike Gallo's argument about defense (and I know he's young). The same with 50% of the board that thinks Adam Jones is a good defensive outfielder. I'm not going to argue that atomic's logic is lacking or even defend his rhetoric. Attack the logic and the rhetoric, not the age. I'm old (51) and willing to match up to many of the young idiots on here if it's a battle of age. There is really no excuse for SG's comment imo.

[CrimsonTribe]

Matusz gave up a few runs in the first game of spring training while barely mixing his pitches and not using a full arsenal. Looks like he's done for good.

[Sports Guy]

Yeah, I don't see the reference to him being superior by his age, but rather using a comparison to good fielding team based on his experience/observation. That's really not disimilar to what a lot of people do by observational input over statistics or the others that mitigate statistics. Wildcard (and I have no idea how hold he is but I'm guessing fairly young) is a typical example. Not to mention Mike Gallo's argument about defense (and I know he's young). The same with 50% of the board that thinks Adam Jones is a good defensive outfielder. I'm not going to argue that atomic's logic is lacking or even defend his rhetoric. Attack the logic and the rhetoric, not the age. I'm old (51) and willing to match up to many of the young idiots on here if it's a battle of age. There is really no excuse for SG's comment imo.

There is also no excuse for you putting your nose into someone else's business but that hasn't stopped you from crying about it either.

His schtick deserved the attack it got. You have an issue with that? Oh well.

When you start bringing out "back in the good ol days" crap, especially in the manner he did/does it, the age stuff is going to end up being brought up and rightfully so.

There are plenty of older posters, yourself included, that don't have to resort to those types of comments to get across a good point.

[Frobby]

Yeah, I don't see the reference to him being superior by his age, but rather using a comparison to good fielding team based on his experience/observation. That's really not disimilar to what a lot of people do by observational input over statistics or the others that mitigate statistics. Wildcard (and I have no idea how hold he is but I'm guessing fairly young) is a typical example. Not to mention Mike Gallo's argument about defense (and I know he's young). The same with 50% of the board that thinks Adam Jones is a good defensive outfielder. I'm not going to argue that atomic's logic is lacking or even defend his rhetoric. Attack the logic and the rhetoric, not the age. I'm old (50) and willing to match up to any of the young idiots on here if it's a battle of age. There is really no excuse for SG's comment imo.

I'm older than you (54) but I didn't really take SG's comment as referring to atomic's age, but rather his "when I was a lad" argument. But whatever. If we are going to play it that way, then I will say this, my years and years of experience as a baseball fan says that you don't count out a 25-year old kid because he has a bad year after a couple of pretty good ones. atomic's post mentions that the first game he attended Dave McNally was on the mound. Well, Dave McNally stunk in 1967 (70 ERA+) but the O's stuck with him and he won 20 games the next four years. He mentions Paul Blair was the CF. Blair had a .595 OPS in 1968, but the O's stuck with him and he was an all-star the following season. Even good players sometimes have setbacks. I am not saying Matusz is going to be as good as McNally, and certainly his 2011 season was even worse than McNally's 1967 season, but the principle is the same -- if a player has had some major league success, you don't count him out after one bad year. Or, one bad year and a somewhat disappointing 2 innings on March 5th the following season.

[TakebackOPACY]

I'm pretty sure that if Matusz has a good outing the next time around, he'll make it to Cooperstown.

[CA-ORIOLE]

There is also no excuse for you putting your nose into someone else's business but that hasn't stopped you from crying about it either.

His schtick deserved the attack it got. You have an issue with that? Oh well.

When you start bringing out "back in the good ol days" crap, especially in the manner he did/does it, the age stuff is going to end up being brought up and rightfully so.

There are plenty of older posters, yourself included, that don't have to resort to those types of comments to get across a good point.

Since it's an open message board and I sensed others were piling on with your nonsense with the old#5 refs, it actually is my business and I chose to comment about it. Don't care that you don't like it. No I don't employ those tactics and I don't employ the tactic you used either. I could easily attack young posters like yourself who are young and think they know more that what they do, but I don't. I try and attack the argument. That's the point. Ignore or pretend you don't get the point all you want. That's classic Sports Guy.

[Sports Guy]

Since it's an open message board and I sensed others were piling on with your nonsense with the old#5 refs, it actually is my business and I chose to comment about it. Don't care that you don't like it. No I don't employ those tactics and I don't employ the tactic you used either. I could easily attack young posters like yourself who are young and think they know more that what they do, but I don't. I try and attack the argument. That's the point. Ignore or pretend you don't get the point all you want. That's classic Sports Guy.

I do get the point...I just don't care.

He got what he deserved and that's it. You crying about it isn't going to change it.

And why do you think others were piling on? Could it be because they saw the same thing I did? Perhaps, you are just being a little too sensitive because you are older than the poster ended up saying he is?

[atomic]

I attacked his age because he was acting like because he saw baseball in the 70s, that he is some freakin genius when he clearly lacks logic and knowledge in most things he discusses.

And when I said that, he hadn't yet said he was in his 40s.

No I didn't act like I was a genius because I saw baseball in the 70's. I am saying a lot of people on here have never seen what I conisider how you play baseball. Which is above average defense. Great fundementals. Throwing strikes. Making contact. hitting behind the runner. If I could see just well played baseball I would't mind the losing so much.

I feel people on here underrate defense. I don't need to see stats to know that Adam Jones is not that good of Center Fielder. His range is not all that great. But stats are never going to tell the whole story on fielding. You actually need too see people play.

[atomic]

I'm older than you (54) but I didn't really take SG's comment as referring to atomic's age, but rather his "when I was a lad" argument. But whatever. If we are going to play it that way, then I will say this, my years and years of experience as a baseball fan says that you don't count out a 25-year old kid because he has a bad year after a couple of pretty good ones. atomic's post mentions that the first game he attended Dave McNally was on the mound. Well, Dave McNally stunk in 1967 (70 ERA+) but the O's stuck with him and he won 20 games the next four years. He mentions Paul Blair was the CF. Blair had a .595 OPS in 1968, but the O's stuck with him and he was an all-star the following season. Even good players sometimes have setbacks. I am not saying Matusz is going to be as good as McNally, and certainly his 2011 season was even worse than McNally's 1967 season, but the principle is the same -- if a player has had some major league success, you don't count him out after one bad year. Or, one bad year and a somewhat disappointing 2 innings on March 5th the following season.

I never said to count him out after one ST game. I said if he keep pitching like he did last night this Spring his mlb career might be over.