Big test for Matusz today

[LA2]

Dave Johnson (RH): 4 SB, 13 CS (1606 PA) -- 24%

Hal Brown (RH): 23 SB, 20 CS (4206 PA)-- 53%

Tippy (LH): 31 SB, 38 CS (3185 PA) -- 45%

Buddy Groom (LH): 8 SB, 5 CS (1207 PA) -- 62%

Dave Leonhard (RH): 8 SB, 22 CS (1403 PA) -- 27%

Jorge Julio (RH): 45 SB, 3 CS (1280 PA) -- 94%

All numbers as Orioles.

I don't remember Jason Simontacchi very much, but he was a righty who pitched for the Cards and Nats, last game about 5 years ago. In his career he threw 355 innings and allowed one stolen base, five caught. He's got a good case for the hardest pitcher to run on in history.

Kirk Reuter holds the post-1960 record for lowest SB% against (min 1000 innings) at 34%. Between 1920-1960 there weren't as many steals, and lots of pitchers held the opposition to very low SB% and SB totals. Bob Wickman is the other side of that coin. 835 MLB appearances, 4586 batters faced, and base stealers were 121-for-143 (85%) off of him.

Bobby Jenks has "held" the opposition to 50 steals in 52 attempts. The Nats' Henry Rodriguez has 97 career innings pitched, and has allowed 22 steals in 22 attempts, the most caught-less attempts since they started keeping track in 1951. I want to see this guy pitch - last year he threw 65 innings, led the NL in wild pitches, walked 6.5 per nine, runners steal on him at will, and still had a 3.56 ERA.

Very interesting. No way Jorge Julio was a nugget! He threw hard and so he must have totally lacked pick-off skill or didn't throw from the stretch (I remember that being a problem for him). Whatever effect the catchers had on him--some, like Brook Fordyce, had low CS%'s, but others, like Geronimo Gil, were actually pretty good--didn't cripple Erik Bedard, who only 27 bases stolen on him during four full seasons, although his percentage wasn't great (27/38 attempts = 71%). From the same era, D-Cab's stats are probably not surprising: 85 SB, 24 CS, 78%. As for Sir Sidney Ponson, interestingly, and relevant to the issue of what some of the young O's pitchers are trying to learn now, he started out very poorly and then, by and large, runners stopped trying to run on him; 60 of the 86 stolen bases during his career (7676 PA) were in his first four seasons (3043 PA), i.e. 70% were during only the first 40% of the batters he faced. So he must have learned.

I remember always being worried that Andy Pettitte would pick an Oriole off of first base: 263 SB, 176 CS (12,987 PA)--60%.

[Frobby]

I didn't know Leonhard because I'm not that old (sorry Frobby, I couldn't resist the shot ). Regarding the rest of your post I 100% agree. Roger and Pettitte were the best lefty moves of my life. Flanagan the best Oriole. Sammy Stewart was uncanny to 2nd. Tippy actually had a very mediocre move for a lefty. He picked those three guys off first because Lenn Sakata was catching in an extra inning game and every runner was salivating at the chance to run.

Jorge Julio and Armando Benitez made me want to blow my brains out. They were awful at everything but throwing really hard.

Also, I believe Guthrie and Mussina were the two best Oriole righties at keeping guys close to first in my lifetime. Guthrie did a lot of small things really well. I'll miss him.

While being as old as me may be a disadvantage for many purposes, in the case of the Orioles it means I'm old enough to have rooted for them when they were undeniably the best team in baseball. As much as I loved the '79-83 teams, the '66-71 teams were even better. I'm glad I'm old enough to have grown up with that team.

As to Leonhard, the numbers pretty much speak for themselves, but his move to 1B was unbelievable -- a true weapon, and everyone knew it. If he came into the game with a runner on base, the first thought in your mind was, "I wonder if he'll pick this guy off?"

I agree on Guthrie and Mussina. Both were very efficient from the stretch. You mention Julio and Benitez as among the worst, and I'd certainly add DCab to that list. DCab had great raw stuff, but otherwise, there was basically nothing he did well, incuding holding runners.

[DrungoHazewood]

Also, I believe Guthrie and Mussina were the two best Oriole righties at keeping guys close to first in my lifetime. Guthrie did a lot of small things really well. I'll miss him.

As annoying as Dave Johnson is as an "analyst" he was probably the best righty at holding runners I've ever seen. In 368 innings, 550-some baserunners, he allowed four steals, 13 caught. Teams basically just didn't run on him. During his time with the '89 team down the stretch run he didn't allow a single steal, and had six caught. He went 48 games into his career before Alex Cole finally stole one off of him.

[Frobby]

As annoying as Dave Johnson is as an "analyst" he was probably the best righty at holding runners I've ever seen. In 368 innings, 550-some baserunners, he allowed four steals, 13 caught. Teams basically just didn't run on him. During his time with the '89 team down the stretch run he didn't allow a single steal, and had six caught. He went 48 games into his career before Alex Cole finally stole one off of him.

I hadn't remembered that about Johnson, but you are abolutely right. He didn't pick off guys at the same rate as Leonhard, but he was even better at preventing runners from stealing.

Whatever else you think about Johnson, he got the most out of his limited talent so I have to respect the guy even though his voice and (sometimes) his opinions can annoy me.

[Sports Guy]

I'd give it to Chen.

So a guy with no ML innings, a new player to the team and a total unknown, should have the OD start? Why?

[Frobby]

So a guy with no ML innings, a new player to the team and a total unknown, should have the OD start? Why?

I could see it. Chen has a better track record than anyone else, and has pitched in plenty of important games. I will be surprised if he's the choice, but not shocked.

[SilentJames]

So a guy with no ML innings, a new player to the team and a total unknown, should have the OD start? Why?

PR? Give the biggest crowd in April a chance to see the new acquisition?

[Sports Guy]

I could see it. Chen has a better track record than anyone else, and has pitched in plenty of important games. I will be surprised if he's the choice, but not shocked.

Hammel has the best track record on the team.

[Sports Guy]

PR? Give the biggest crowd in April a chance to see the new acquisition?

Of all the reasons that could be given, this is by far the worst.

I really hope the Orioles aren't thinking this way.

[hayek]

I want to go on record as saying that I'd start the worst starter who makes the rotation on opening day, my 2nd worst starter in game two, my best in game 3, 2nd best in game 4, and 3rd best in game 5. But I have zero desire to embrace nostalgia or marketing in the decision over "opening day starter". I think this alignment would provide the best opportunity to win games over time. Of course, I also wouldn't announce this thinking publicly. I'd keep it to myself and use some made up BS to justify my decision so I didn't undermine my players.

My thinking is simple. We won't match up well with most teams if we put 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3, ...., but we will have the advantage with our 1 vs their 3 and so on versus most teams. We'd win probably 30% of the games where our late rotation guys go against the other teams best pitchers, but we should have a major advantage in the other three games. Of course, this alignment doesn't stay true for long due to the varying off days that the opponents you're facing has versus our own off days. As a manager though, I'd look at that stuff and try to align it as best I can, by swapping orders and playing games with off days. I think it can make a big difference over the course of a season. The war is much more important to me than any particular battle.

I have always thought a strategy like this made too much sense for a team like the Orioles not to utilize. Also, in the same vein, I would play my starters on Sundays when everyone else tries to give their starters an offday. The Orioles need every competitive advantage that they can get.

[NewMarketSean]

I want to go on record as saying that I'd start the worst starter who makes the rotation on opening day, my 2nd worst starter in game two, my best in game 3, 2nd best in game 4, and 3rd best in game 5. But I have zero desire to embrace nostalgia or marketing in the decision over "opening day starter". I think this alignment would provide the best opportunity to win games over time. Of course, I also wouldn't announce this thinking publicly. I'd keep it to myself and use some made up BS to justify my decision so I didn't undermine my players.

My thinking is simple. We won't match up well with most teams if we put 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3, ...., but we will have the advantage with our 1 vs their 3 and so on versus most teams. We'd win probably 30% of the games where our late rotation guys go against the other teams best pitchers, but we should have a major advantage in the other three games. Of course, this alignment doesn't stay true for long due to the varying off days that the opponents you're facing has versus our own off days. As a manager though, I'd look at that stuff and try to align it as best I can, by swapping orders and playing games with off days. I think it can make a big difference over the course of a season. The war is much more important to me than any particular battle.

I also like that idea but I doubt you'll see a coach, especially one as shrewd as Showalter, theoretically punt a game versus a team's #1 starting pitcher.

i think coaches, players and fans relish beating another team's #1 guy. I think you'd also see a severe drop in attendance when you've got a guy like Dana Eveland going up against Justin Verlander. I know I would never go to a game that had that pitching match-up.

[DrungoHazewood]

I want to go on record as saying that I'd start the worst starter who makes the rotation on opening day, my 2nd worst starter in game two, my best in game 3, 2nd best in game 4, and 3rd best in game 5. But I have zero desire to embrace nostalgia or marketing in the decision over "opening day starter". I think this alignment would provide the best opportunity to win games over time. Of course, I also wouldn't announce this thinking publicly. I'd keep it to myself and use some made up BS to justify my decision so I didn't undermine my players.

My thinking is simple. We won't match up well with most teams if we put 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3, ...., but we will have the advantage with our 1 vs their 3 and so on versus most teams. We'd win probably 30% of the games where our late rotation guys go against the other teams best pitchers, but we should have a major advantage in the other three games. Of course, this alignment doesn't stay true for long due to the varying off days that the opponents you're facing has versus our own off days. As a manager though, I'd look at that stuff and try to align it as best I can, by swapping orders and playing games with off days. I think it can make a big difference over the course of a season. The war is much more important to me than any particular battle.

I'm sure you know that teams did swap pitchers around for matchups like you describe prior to about 1960. It was easier back then for several reasons, but mostly because of train travel, scheduled doubleheaders, and many rainouts necessitating every more unscheduled doubleheaders. Regular 4- or 5- man/day rotations were almost impossible, so given the chaos inherent in the schedules managers would take advantage and start their best pitchers in the most advantageous situations.

Today the conventional wisdom is that regular rest is a bigger advantage than matchups. So in baseball terms that means an actual member of the Taliban would have to be threatening OPACY and demanding 1950 strategies before Buck would do what you're suggesting.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'm sure you know that teams did swap pitchers around for matchups like you describe prior to about 1960. It was easier back then for several reasons, but mostly because of train travel, scheduled doubleheaders, and many rainouts necessitating every more unscheduled doubleheaders. Regular 4- or 5- man/day rotations were almost impossible, so given the chaos inherent in the schedules managers would take advantage and start their best pitchers in the most advantageous situations.

Today the conventional wisdom is that regular rest is a bigger advantage than matchups. So in baseball terms that means an actual member of the Taliban would have to be threatening OPACY and demanding 1950 strategies before Buck would do what you're suggesting.

I think 1960 may have some significance with respect to that thinking. I'm pretty sure that was the year Casey Stengel juggled the World Series rotation to have Whitey Ford pitch against the Pirates worse SP. Ford actually pitched two shutouts but was heavily criticised because Ford could have potentially pitched a third game if he had started the first one. Unfortuantely for Casey, he was fired.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I'm sure you know that teams did swap pitchers around for matchups like you describe prior to about 1960. It was easier back then for several reasons, but mostly because of train travel, scheduled doubleheaders, and many rainouts necessitating every more unscheduled doubleheaders. Regular 4- or 5- man/day rotations were almost impossible, so given the chaos inherent in the schedules managers would take advantage and start their best pitchers in the most advantageous situations.

Today the conventional wisdom is that regular rest is a bigger advantage than matchups. So in baseball terms that means an actual member of the Taliban would have to be threatening OPACY and demanding 1950 strategies before Buck would do what you're suggesting.

It sounds to me like he's suggesting leaving them on regular rest, but in a different order than "traditional" rotations.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think 1960 may have some significance with respect to that thinking. I'm pretty sure that was the year Casey Stengel juggled the World Series rotation to have Whitey Ford pitch against the Pirates worse SP. Ford actually pitched two shutouts but was heavily criticised because Ford could have potentially pitched a third game if he had started the first one. Unfortuantely for Casey, he was fired.

I didn't know that, it could be a contributing factor. But it was also around that time that modern scheduling became possible with better stadiums/drainage, jet travel, plus the beginnings of the end of regularly scheduled doubleheaders.

It sounds to me like he's suggesting leaving them on regular rest, but in a different order than "traditional" rotations.

He went a bit beyond that:

Of course, this alignment doesn't stay true for long due to the varying off days that the opponents you're facing has versus our own off days. As a manager though, I'd look at that stuff and try to align it as best I can, by swapping orders and playing games with off days.