Matusz Optioned To Norfolk After The Game

[Malike]

With what? I haven't really taken any stance/argued anything in this thread so much as I've made fun of the more silly-outlandish comments. As for the first line above, most of that I haven't said anywhere in this thread (Tillman looks better in AAA being the exception). SrMeowMeow is doing a fine job arguing whatever reasonable point there is to argue in this whole thing, and given that I've argued something pretty similar to what he's arguing right now (the historical take is a nice touch, though) many times over, I'm good with that.

(As for your objection to my counter-example: I'm "cherry-picking" from the top 20 ERAs in the bigs. If you want to go down the list we can find even more apt examples. The qualifications you make also really don't do much to take away from the general idea of my post...)

Yes--I'm sure they do. Advanced scouts don't usually lose 2 1/2 years of data. And again, where do I make any claim about Hammel? How can you say my crystal ball is more accurate (sarcastically) than yours when I didn't even bring mine out? All I did was point out how worthless your argument was.

But, sure, I'd be willing to bet Jason Hammel will finish with an ERA under 4 this year. So if you want to have a "chat" come August, there's my prediction.

Considering that Hammel has had a sub 3 ERA for most of the season, and people thought it was sustainable, finishing with a sub 4 ERA would be some regression.

Calling someone else's opinion worthless, when you are living on your own strawman is awesome. Look at how both Chen and Hammel are trending, and you can say with confidence that you think they are going to end the season much better than league average?

You honestly don't think they have both had the benefit of being new to the league, and the league is adjusting?

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[MrOrange82]

I think his ERA going forward will be closer to 4.01 than 5.81. Meaning, 1) I think his true ability to prevent runs is closer to his FIP so far than his ERA so far, and 2) that I'd take the under on 4.91 ERA for the rest of the season. I won't take the under on a 4.91 ERA total for the season since he already has a 5.81 ERA banked.

Then the question becomes...what number do you think truly reflects his ability to prevent runs? Being a "4.01" ERA pitcher isn't exactly stellar these days, and that's all it'd take to bring his season ERA down to 4.91 overall given another 97.2 innings. So what is he? A 4.20 guy? 4.30? Higher? How much value does he have if his "true ability to prevent runs" is somewhere in the mid- to high-fours? What point is there to this entire argument if, essentially, your stance boils down to "yes, he's sh---y, but not as sh---y as you think he is"?

[CA-ORIOLE]

With what? I haven't really taken any stance/argued anything in this thread so much as I've made fun of the more silly-outlandish comments. As for the first line above, most of that I haven't said anywhere in this thread (Tillman looks better in AAA being the exception). SrMeowMeow is doing a fine job arguing whatever reasonable point there is to argue in this whole thing, and given that I've argued something pretty similar to what he's arguing right now (the historical take is a nice touch, though) many times over, I'm good with that.

(As for your objection to my counter-example: I'm "cherry-picking" from the top 20 ERAs in the bigs. If you want to go down the list we can find even more apt examples. The qualifications you make also really don't do much to take away from the general idea of my post...)

Yes--I'm sure they do. Advanced scouts don't usually lose 2 1/2 years of data. And again, where do I make any claim about Hammel? How can you say my crystal ball is more accurate (sarcastically) than yours when I didn't even bring mine out? All I did was point out how worthless your argument was.

But, sure, I'd be willing to bet Jason Hammel will finish with an ERA under 4 this year. So if you want to have a "chat" come August, there's my prediction.

I'd say we disagree with the general state of failure and outlook of our young pitchers. You're position to rationalize it, my position to be critical of it. I thought that was clear.

I've adressed the peripherals with Arrieta many times over here, and in previous posts/threads. I'll believe my eyes and the more specific stats (rWAR and tERA) that support what my eyes are seeing................ and that is, he's being hit hard. DIPS theory should not interfere with common sense.

I have no idea what the bolded part is about. But since you're (apparrently) referring to my post a worthless, it's probably best to end things here.

[Malike]

I'd say we disagree with the general state of failure and outlook of our young pitchers. You're position to rationalize it, my position to be critical of it. I thought that was clear.

I've adressed the peripherals with Arrieta many times over here, and in previous posts/threads. I'll believe my eyes and the more specific stats (rWAR and tERA) that support what my eyes are seeing................ and that is, he's being hit hard. DIPS theory should not interfere with common sense.

I have no idea what the bolded part is about. But since you're (apparrently) referring to my post a worthless, it's probably best to end things here.

The bold was in reply to my post about seeing regression from both Hammel and Chen. My argument is worthless.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[Flash- bd]

Considering that Hammel has had a sub 3 ERA for most of the season, and people thought it was sustainable, finishing with a sub 4 ERA would be some regression.

Calling someone else's opinion worthless, when you are living on your own strawman is awesome. Look at how both Chen and Hammel are trending, and you can say with confidence that you think they are going to end the season much better than league average?

You honestly don't think they have both had the benefit of being new to the league, and the league is adjusting?

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Don't really know what you're trying to say in the bolded.

To answer your question: in Chen's case he's probably benefited to some extent. In Hammel's case (which is what I took objection to), like I said, that argument seems to me completely worthless (aka has little-no explanatory value. Don't take it as an insult, I should have said "of no worth" because it expresses the same thing without sounding as insulting).

[CA-ORIOLE]

The bold was in reply to my post about seeing regression from both Hammel and Chen. My argument is worthless.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Ok, may apologies to Bd0493 then. Good to hear your post was worthless and not mine.

[SrMeowMeow]

Then the question becomes...what number do you think truly reflects his ability to prevent runs? Being a "4.01" ERA pitcher isn't exactly stellar these days, and that's all it'd take to bring his season ERA down to 4.91 overall given another 97.2 innings. So what is he? A 4.20 guy? 4.30? Higher? How much value does he have if his "true ability to prevent runs" is somewhere in the mid- to high-fours? What point is there to this entire argument if, essentially, your stance boils down to "yes, he's sh---y, but not as sh---y as you think he is"?

4.01 ERA is above average. That's valuable. Very valuable when it's for league minimum. If your bar for Arrieta is set at ace, then yes, you're going to be disappointed. Me, I just want pitchers who can keep us in games at this point. And I think that Arrieta is a good bet to do that going forward.

[Flash- bd]

I've adressed the peripherals with Arrieta many times over here, and in previous posts/threads. I'll believe my eyes and the more specific stats (rWAR and tERA) that support what my eyes are seeing................ and that is, he's being hit hard. DIPS theory should not interfere with common sense.

Yeah, I brought up tERA (and SIERA, more relevant/predictive than FIP, which actually favors Jake) in this thread: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/122549-Jake-Arrieta-5-83-ERA-3-97-FIP-3-63-xFIP?p=2805063#post2805063

Like I said, I have no interest in arguing Jake as I (and many others) have already argued him to death, but I will say I've watched quite attentively every start Jake has made this season and although it's been a roller-coaster ride how people can watch all his starts and think, this guy isn't a big league pitcher , is beyond me. The Mets start, for example, seems to me one of the most memorable instances this season where there was a divide between what the eyes saw and the results said.

[Uli2001]

There is a new sheriff in town. Buck up or get out. Hopefully these guys get the message and get their acts together.

Best post of the night. Buck S. will not allow the traditional Oriole tailspin to happen on his watch.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yeah, I brought up tERA (and SIERA, more relevant/predictive than FIP, which actually favors Jake) in this thread: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/122549-Jake-Arrieta-5-83-ERA-3-97-FIP-3-63-xFIP?p=2805063#post2805063

Like I said, I have no interest in arguing Jake as I (and many others) have already argued him to death, but I will say I've watched quite attentively every start Jake has made this season and although it's been a roller-coaster ride how people can watch all his starts and think, this guy isn't a big league pitcher , is beyond me. The Mets start, for example, seems to me one of the most memorable instances this season where there was a divide between what the eyes saw and the results said.

Yes I was part of that debate. SIERA does not account for LD%. Only tERA and rWAR's mehodology do (at least the one's that I know of). I've been a big Arrieta fan as well and I also watch every game, but I can't ignore what I'm seeing and that's not a very good pitcher right now (poor command/up in the zone, hittable tailing FB, falling behind/poor sequencing, less than impressive secondaries, inconsistent from pitch-to-pitch, etc). I'm not really impressed with that changeup he's been throwing more of late either, though I do think he needs it against LHP.

[MrOrange82]

4.01 ERA is above average. That's valuable. Very valuable when it's for league minimum. If your bar for Arrieta is set at ace, then yes, you're going to be disappointed. Me, I just want pitchers who can keep us in games at this point. And I think that Arrieta is a good bet to do that going forward.

That really answered no part of the preceding question.

Still, on a related note (since we're going on tangents), do you happen to know what the average ERA for all starting pitchers in MLB is? Because I'm having trouble finding it. I can tell you, though, that the average ERA across all teams/pitchers is 4.00. So Arrieta's FIP is, essentially, average. Not above average. In other words, mediocrity seems to be his most optimistic standard bearer. Of course, the numbers for starters could be higher overall, thereby making his FIP (standing in for his actual ERA) above average.

Still again...you didn't answer the question.

[Ampontan]

Ultimately, what it boils down to is the front office, for whatever stupid reason thinks this team can contend and they are not going keep rolling the same fodder out there who takes the team out of the game in the first four innings on a consistent basis. Which is what all three of Hunter, Matusz, and Arietta are doing.

One of the things DD said when he was hired was that whenever he turned an Oriole game on, they already had a relief pitcher in during the middle innings, and that had to stop. He's right, it has to stop.

Stupid reason? How about...generating fan interest?

[SrMeowMeow]

That really answered no part of the preceding question.

Still, on a related note (since we're going on tangents), do you happen to know what the average ERA for all starting pitchers in MLB is? Because I'm having trouble finding it. I can tell you, though, that the average ERA across all teams/pitchers is 4.00. So Arrieta's FIP is, essentially, average. Not above average. In other words, mediocrity seems to be his most optimistic standard bearer. Of course, the numbers for starters could be higher overall, thereby making his FIP (standing in for his actual ERA) above average.

Still again...you didn't answer the question.

I don't understand your question, then. There isn't some bar between "I am a good pitcher" and "I am a bad pitcher". If Jake had put up a 4.01 ERA instead of a 5.81 ERA so far this season, that would be hugely better. If he'd put up a 4.81 ERA instead of a 5.81 ERA, that's still about a full win of improvement (about ten runs better over 100 IP).

Your argument is sprawling. First it was "FIP doesn't encapsulate Jake as well as ERA", and now it's "his FIP still isn't good so who cares"? I don't think we're making any progress and you don't seem to want to know much about FIP. Which is fine, but don't try to prove that it's useless.

[Flash- bd]

Yes I was part of that debate. SIERA does not account for LD%. Only tERA and rWAR's mehodology do (at least the one's that I know of). I've been a big Arrieta fan as well and I also watched every game, but I cant' ignore what I'm seeing and that's not a very good pitcher right now (poor command/up in the zone, hittable tailing FB, falling behind/poor sequencing, inconsistent from pitch-to-pitch, etc). I'm not really impressed with that changeup he's been throwing more of late either, though I do think he needs it against LHP.

Right, then you'll know that his tERA also suggests his ERA is not kind to him. You should also consider the fact that we're talking about the future, here, and there's litte denying that SIERA has been the best at predicting future ERAs, so the fact his SIERA is actually his lowest of his ERA metrics should say something to you. You can just choose not to believe in DIPS theory but you can't just exclude it from the argument for your benefit, because it has real predictive value that's been proven.

Other than that, I don't really disagree with you, and the little qualifications I would make to your post require more effort/exploration than I want to go into right now. I will say, for the record, I was pretty damn disappointed with his start on Friday. That pitcher--I agree--was not a very good one. On the year, though, my eyes tell me he's been average-below average, with room to grow.

MrOrange: on your ERA question, let's put it this way: There's currently 17 pitchers in the AL with an ERA under 4. An ERA of 4.01 is most certainly above average, especially in the AL East/Camden Yards.

[MrOrange82]

I don't understand your question, then. There isn't some bar between "I am a good pitcher" and "I am a bad pitcher". If Jake had put up a 4.01 ERA instead of a 5.81 ERA so far this season, that would be hugely better. If he'd put up a 4.81 ERA instead of a 5.81 ERA, that's still about a full win of improvement (about ten runs better over 100 IP).

Your argument is sprawling. First it was "FIP doesn't encapsulate Jake as well as ERA", and now it's "his FIP still isn't good so who cares"? I don't think we're making any progress and you don't seem to want to know much about FIP. Which is fine, but don't try to prove that it's useless.

No...the entirety of my argument has been, and remains, that Jake isn't very good, and I'm tired of people claiming otherwise by using predictive statistics as talismans. So yeah, you can run with that stance to "even if Arrieta isn't actually, really, as bad as he's appeared, if he's still really bad...who cares?" I think he's bad. 4.81 is bad. 5.81 is bad. Anything well-above average (in the elevated sense) is bad.

What are you trying to prove?