Jump to content

Matusz article and chart


Frobby

Recommended Posts

I'd just like some specifics. What kind of support does Palmer think the Orioles don't provide that other teams do provide? He doesn't say, and he also tosses in the word "probably." If I knew exactly what he meant, and it was backed up with some specifics, I'd probably be infuriated, too. But as it is, I don't really know what to make of the statement.

Right, I get what you're saying and that's a fair statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I'd just like some specifics. What kind of support does Palmer think the Orioles don't provide that other teams do provide? He doesn't say, and he also tosses in the word "probably." If I knew exactly what he meant, and it was backed up with some specifics, I'd probably be infuriated, too. But as it is, I don't really know what to make of the statement.
Run support, defensive support, constant losing environment, pressure to succeeed, tougher competetion and less positive reinforcement. .

Yea, that's probably a decent subset of what Palmer is referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, that's probably a decent subset of what Palmer is referring to.
It's typically what he comments about on the broadcasts.

Well, if that is all he means, then the comment doesnt worry me, in the sense that these are all defects we are well aware of. But if he is referring to lack of coaching or medical/training support, that is more worrisome, though the Duquette regime has made a lot of changes in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see why Buck would want to improve that be I agree that the trade off is silly. Let the guy do what got him here, tinkering is fine but when he had such issues last year I think getting back to the basics is important.

As far as working on things in ST goes, that honestly never really occured to me. I agree that later in the spring we will make much better assertions on where Matsuz is in regards to why his performance is what it is. But thanks for the advice, trying different things mechanics or whatever early in the spring went right over my head while making those observations.

No prob. I know after last season we are all so antsy to see BM get back to being successful that we are watching EVERY move. I just learned my lesson about the spring about 4 years ago, went down to Ft. Meyers and caught the O's/Twins play a couple, was watching someone throw and it just looked SO off, I thought there might be an injury or something. Then saw him again in one of the exhibition games right before the season and it was like a different guy. Dawned on me afterwards what I saw in FL was experimenting to try to improve fielding after the pitch and they scrapped it after, but they had me worried for a couple weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "time to the plate" thing absolutely reeks of old school manager talk, the kind of talk that's on the opposite end of the forward thinking management/leadership/FO that this team needs.

It's important, but I'm willing to bet it's impossible whether to tell it'll make or break a season, or what two tenths of a second faster to home plate means for a pitcher over a course of a season. And when they're struggling to win 70 games, there are much bigger things to worry about. Lastly, when they've got a guy back there like Wieters who has a rocket in his socket, who cares?

I remember reading about how when Dwight Gooden came up and how amazing he was. Then Mel Stottlemyre started tweaking and tinkering and tried to get him to stop going for so many strikeouts, or teaching him a new pitch (slider?), I don't remember the specifics. He just thought that if he coached Gooden up some more, he could be even BETTER. How could Gooden be any BETTER? His first two seasons were absolutely ridiculous. He should have just left him alone, he was great as he was. Of course the booger sugar and the alcohol ruined him but a lot of people involved with those Mets teams think Stottlemyre didn't do him any favors, either.

So why would anyone tinker with Matusz's mechanics? This also reminds me when Sherrill's relative was posting here and clued us in on the change in mechanics the Orioles made from one season to another. Very slight, yet they had a big impact on him for awhile.

Yeah I've been thinking along these lines since mid-season last year. It seems like a "I know best, and THIS is how it's going to be" kind of situation with Buck, almost seems like he doesn't care that some things don't work for some people, either you're going to do it his way or not at all. One of the reasons why I'm actually not as high on Buck as others around. I see the benefits of having that kind of coach on a young team when you are trying to instill the right way to behave in the majors, BUT when it comes to taking a guy with so much potential and ruining him just to try to make a point it just makes me mad. I mean if you try it your way and it doesn't work for that guy, don't say oh it's because he sucks, cut him, instead of hey, maybe my way isn't the best in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I've been thinking along these lines since mid-season last year. It seems like a "I know best, and THIS is how it's going to be" kind of situation with Buck, almost seems like he doesn't care that some things don't work for some people, either you're going to do it his way or not at all. One of the reasons why I'm actually not as high on Buck as others around. I see the benefits of having that kind of coach on a young team when you are trying to instill the right way to behave in the majors, BUT when it comes to taking a guy with so much potential and ruining him just to try to make a point it just makes me mad. I mean if you try it your way and it doesn't work for that guy, don't say oh it's because he sucks, cut him, instead of hey, maybe my way isn't the best in this situation.

The players seem to like Buck, and that's enough for now. But I have concerns along the lines expressed above (and by Moose) as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if that is all he means, then the comment doesnt worry me, in the sense that these are all defects we are well aware of. But if he is referring to lack of coaching or medical/training support, that is more worrisome, though the Duquette regime has made a lot of changes in that regard.

My assumption was coaching, training, medical support, access to data, and other things could easily be included in Palmer's generalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this stuff gets blown out of proportion. I'd expect any manager to want his pitchers to be effective at holding runners. Obviously, you have to balance that against messing up a guy's mechanics, but for the most part, pitchers are able to learn to be more effective at holding runners without compromising their pitching. Some are better than others at it. I'm sure Buck realizes this, and don't read that much into his comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this stuff gets blown out of proportion. I'd expect any manager to want his pitchers to be effective at holding runners. Obviously, you have to balance that against messing up a guy's mechanics, but for the most part, pitchers are able to learn to be more effective at holding runners without compromising their pitching. Some are better than others at it. I'm sure Buck realizes this, and don't read that much into his comments.

I don't think it's unusual or unexpected for MLB players, coaches, and managers to improperly weight the importance of various aspects of the game. There is a lot more information available today, so you'd hope it's not as bad as in the past. But in my lifetime we've seen crazy things like routinely batting guys leadoff with .300 OBPs and 75 steals, because there was no realization that the steals didn't come close to making up for the poor hitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's unusual or unexpected for MLB players, coaches, and managers to improperly weight the importance of various aspects of the game. There is a lot more information available today, so you'd hope it's not as bad as in the past. But in my lifetime we've seen crazy things like routinely batting guys leadoff with .300 OBPs and 75 steals, because there was no realization that the steals didn't come close to making up for the poor hitting.

What do we make of a guy with an OBP of .310 batting leadoff...with no speed?

('cause Buck sure-as-heck did that for a while last year.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this stuff gets blown out of proportion. I'd expect any manager to want his pitchers to be effective at holding runners. Obviously, you have to balance that against messing up a guy's mechanics, but for the most part, pitchers are able to learn to be more effective at holding runners without compromising their pitching. Some are better than others at it. I'm sure Buck realizes this, and don't read that much into his comments.

I do agree with you to a point, but like Drungo said I think there's kind of an old-school/new-school gap right now where some guys do things because that's just the way it was done, and some guys do thing because they don't HAVE to do things the way they were done. I understand them wanting them to hold runners, but when you have the best defensive catcher in baseball with an arm that makes up for not holding runners at all, why screw up a pitcher's mechanics for an extra .3 seconds to the plate? It just doesn't make sense, the risk far outweighed the reward, and now it's almost like well I can't look like I was wrong, I'd rather he gets sent to the minors. Just worried that ego is getting in the way.

I'd leave it completely alone if they would just let him TRY the way things were before and see if it fixes anything, if it doesn't then oh well I'm wrong it's something else. I just see too many coincidences with the mess from last year for it all to be unrelated. Like I said I see the benefit of having that no-nonsense, guy in charge with a young team, BUT he's got to be willing to admit mistakes and not blame everything on the players. "Oh well if he was really that good, he'd improve" is basically what I keep hearing, and I want to hear "we are trying a few different things to get him back to where he was".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does this quote come from, and what is the context? It's such a vague comment that I really don't know what he means when he says "[y]ou don't get as much support as you probably would on other ball clubs." What kind of support is he talking about? Coaching support? Medical support? Run support? I frankly find the comment annoying due to its lack of specificity.

Frankly, I find the quote spot on due to the lack of specificity, if you get what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I've been thinking along these lines since mid-season last year. It seems like a "I know best, and THIS is how it's going to be" kind of situation with Buck, almost seems like he doesn't care that some things don't work for some people, either you're going to do it his way or not at all. One of the reasons why I'm actually not as high on Buck as others around. I see the benefits of having that kind of coach on a young team when you are trying to instill the right way to behave in the majors, BUT when it comes to taking a guy with so much potential and ruining him just to try to make a point it just makes me mad. I mean if you try it your way and it doesn't work for that guy, don't say oh it's because he sucks, cut him, instead of hey, maybe my way isn't the best in this situation.

Yep. Seems like coaches feel like they have to coach all the time...that if they're not instructing, tinkering or tweaking then they're not doing their job.

Like, what's a hitting coach going to tell Albert Pujols? Just let him do his thing. A hitting coach should never have to talk to a guy like that. Matusz had good command when he got to the bigs. And on the days he didn't, maybe he just didn't trust his stuff? Maybe he was afraid to throw it over the plate? Hard to tell.

IMO, at this level a pitching coach should be teaching guys how to throw a new pitch or talking advanced tactics on how to set up hitters and stuff. Unless your a mess like Brad Pennington, there's no reason to mess around with mechanics. Matusz had better than a 2:1 k/bb ratio for his first two seasons in the majors. There was absolutely no reason to mess with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this stuff gets blown out of proportion. I'd expect any manager to want his pitchers to be effective at holding runners. Obviously, you have to balance that against messing up a guy's mechanics, but for the most part, pitchers are able to learn to be more effective at holding runners without compromising their pitching. Some are better than others at it. I'm sure Buck realizes this, and don't read that much into his comments.

Maddux was notoriously bad at holding runners, but it didn't matter. I was hoping Matusz would be a lefty version of Maddux...barely touches 90, but with impeccable control and movement. Fields his position well. Cerebral. Pitches to contact well but also has a ridiculous k/bb ratio.

When I pitched, I was always told to worry about the guy at the plate when I had runners on. Worry about the guy at the plate and the runners shouldn't matter too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Did most people miss the words elite and controlled in the title? Surprised at how easily so many people said no, when I thought the bullpen was a consensus weakness of this team. I like Kjerstad too and you don't trade him for just anyone. But if you can get a difference making 8th/9th inning guy, who isn't a rental, that seems worth considering. 
    • No problem. Like I said I think Mike is open minded. Big difference obviously from shagging pre game to playing in games. Said Mayo is working on OF behind the scenes. 
    • Gametime:  1:35 pm ET Forecast:  55 degrees and sunny Matchup:  Cole Irvin (L) vs Seth Lugo (R) Lineups See first post Orioles Bench Austin Hays (R) Jorge Mateo (R) James McCann (R) Ramon Urias (R) Orioles Bullpen Available Mike Baumann  (R)  0.1 IP, 2p last night Yennier Cano (R)  0.1 IP, 15p last night;  1.0 IP, 20p Wednesday Danny Coulombe (L)  0.2 11p last night;  0.2 IP, 10p Wednesday  Craig Kimbrel  (R)  1.0 IP, 9p last night;  1.0 IP, 12p Wednesday Dillon Tate  (R)  1.0 IP, 20p Friday;  1.1 IP, 21p Monday Jacob Webb (R)  0.1 IP, 15p Wednesday Probably Available Yohan Ramirez (R)  0.1 IP, 10p last night Not Available Keegan Akin (L)  0.2 IP, 11p last night;  0.1 IP, 16p Friday;  0.1 IP, 3p Wednesday
    • He didn’t cover that. Just said he responded well to the injection. Said in January he felt weird sensation ramping up. He felt like at time he could throw threw it. Credited rest and staff working with him. Build him back slowly in minors.    I enjoy listening to Front Office show and with Sirius app can go back and listen. 
    • I saw he was just put on the IL for a knee sprain. I hope it's not serious.
    • Orioles 1 Henderson       SS 2 Rutschman        C 3 O’Hearn          DH 4 Santander       RF 5 Mountcastle    1B 6 Mullins            CF 7 Cowser           LF 8 Westburg        3B 9 Holliday          2B Irvin, C              SP Royals 1 Garcia, M         3B 2 Witt Jr.             SS 3 Pasquantino    1B 4 Perez, S          DH 5 Melendez         LF 6 Renfroe           RF 7 Frazier             2B 8 Fermin              C 9 Hampson        CF Lugo, S              SP
    • Thanks for sharing! I think Mayo in the OF is a good idea. Westburg is proving himself capable of being an every day option at 3B. 1B is covered for now unless something unexpected happens with Mountcastle. All of the OF prospects are left handed so Mayo would help balance that out. 
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...