Matusz Optioned To Norfolk After The Game

[MrOrange82]

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.

Hmm...I might be doing something wrong, but I just went and counted the ML pitchers who've started 10 or more games this season, and there are 63 pitchers with ERA's of 4.01 or lower (incidentally, Matt Garza, at exactly 4.01, is the only above-4.00 ERA pitcher in that group). There were 137 starting pitchers total.

Given the spread of ERA's that I saw, I'd wager the true average is pretty close to 4.01 (probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.20).

EDIT: if you expand the above to players who've started any number of games, there are 98 pitchers with ERA's of 4.01 or lower, and 152 with higher ERA's. I'm just not going to average them all out. Just thinking about it makes me sleepy.

[jtschrei]

Well, we'll see what Rick Peterson is really made of now. I think Matusz needs lots of coaching and significant time in the minors. I don't think we will see him in the majors until next season.

[SrMeowMeow]

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?

You need to go back and re-read the way your argument evolved in this thread. I think it may surprise you.

Anyway, 4.81 is a usable fifth starter. 5.81 means out of professional baseball. 4.01 is a number 2 starter in the AL. Your analysis is simplistic to the point of uselessness.

[SrMeowMeow]

Hmm...I might be doing something wrong, but I just went and counted the ML pitchers who've started 10 or more games this season, and there are 63 pitchers with ERA's of 4.01 or lower (incidentally, Matt Garza, at exactly 4.01, is the only above-4.00 ERA pitcher in that group). There were 137 starting pitchers total.

Given the spread of ERA's that I saw, I'd wager the true average is pretty close to 4.01 (probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.20).

EDIT: if you expand the above to players who've started any number of games, there are 98 pitchers with ERA's of 4.01 or lower, and 152 with higher ERA's. I'm just not going to average them all out. Just thinking about it makes me sleepy.

Can't include the NL. Because of the lack of a DH, NL pitchers average about 0.50 less on their ERA, so you'd need to adjust for that or just focus on the AL.

[Flash- bd]

Hmm...I might be doing something wrong, but I just went and counted the ML pitchers who've started 10 or more games this season, and there are 63 pitchers with ERA's of 4.01 or lower (incidentally, Matt Garza, at exactly 4.01, is the only above-4.00 ERA pitcher in that group). There were 137 starting pitchers total.

Given the spread of ERA's that I saw, I'd wager the true average is pretty close to 4.01 (probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.20).

EDIT: if you expand the above to players who've started any number of games, there are 98 pitchers with ERA's of 4.01 or lower, and 152 with higher ERA's. I'm just not going to average them all out. Just thinking about it makes me sleepy.

No, you're not doing anything wrong...except not taking into account the huge factor of AL vs. NL.

Henderson Alvarez (AL East, I believe Toronto has comparable park factors to Camden Yards) has a 4.15 ERA and a 102+ ERA (ie, just above-average).

[MrOrange82]

You need to go back and re-read the way your argument evolved in this thread. I think it may surprise you.

Anyway, 4.81 is a usable fifth starter. 5.81 means out of professional baseball. 4.01 is a number 2 starter in the AL. Your analysis is simplistic to the point of uselessness.

And your argument is held together by pixie dust and happy thoughts.

All I wanted to know from you (towards the end) - GIVEN that you don't seem to think Arrieta will pitch to his lofty, 4.01 FIP for the rest of the year - is what you think his true, run-prevention ability is? Where does he fit on that oh-so-unassailable spectrum you proposed above (i.e., 5.81...4.81...4.01)?

So what is it? Is he Tommy Hunter's equivalent? Is he a 4/5 starter? Is he a number 2 in an ugly duckling's wetsuit?

What is his actual "run prevention ability," in your estimation?

[MrOrange82]

No, you're not doing anything wrong...except not taking into account the huge factor of AL vs. NL.

Henderson Alvarez (AL East, I believe Toronto has comparable park factors to Camden Yards) has a 4.15 ERA and a 102+ ERA (ie, just above-average).

Fair enough. So the AL average is probably somewhere around 4.16-4.20, and Arrieta, if he pitched to his FIP, would be above average. Can't argue with that.

[SrMeowMeow]

And your argument is held together by pixie dust and happy thoughts.

All I wanted to know from you (towards the end) - GIVEN that you don't seem to think Arrieta will pitch to his lofty, 4.01 FIP for the rest of the year - is what you think his true, run-prevention ability is? Where does he fit on that oh-so-unassailable spectrum you proposed above (i.e., 5.81...4.81...4.01)?

So what is it? Is he Tommy Hunter's equivalent? Is he a 4/5 starter? Is he a number 2 in an ugly duckling's wetsuit?

What is his actual "run prevention ability," in your estimation?

Like most things in baseball, once you get past the surface, it's hard to say for sure. I'd take the under on 4.91 ERA for the rest of 2012, like I said. Anything else would depend on odds. And your tone suggests this is going nowhere. My argument is held together, not by "pixie dust and happy thoughts", but by statistics, logic, and a lack of an agenda. Since clearly a dozen posts trying to articulate a somewhat subtle point have been completely disregarded in favor of being argumentative, I'm not going to pursue this any farther with you.

As a wise man once said, "the only reason to argue is to learn something new". And in this case, all I'm learning is not to try to debate with someone when their pride is involved.

[MrOrange82]

Like most things in baseball, once you get past the surface, it's hard to say for sure. I'd take the under on 4.91 ERA for the rest of 2012, like I said. Anything else would depend on odds. And your tone suggests this is going nowhere. My argument is held together, not by "pixie dust and happy thoughts", but by statistics, logic, and a lack of an agenda. Since clearly a dozen posts trying to articulate a somewhat subtle point have been completely disregarded in favor of being argumentative, I'm not going to pursue this any farther with you.

As a wise man once said, "the only reason to argue is to learn something new". And in this case, all I'm learning is not to try to debate with someone when their pride is involved.

Sigh...all the statistics and logic in the world amount to very little, in my estimation, if all you can say is that Arrieta will probably pitch to a less-than-4.91 ERA for the remainder of the season, and anything else comes down to "odds." Even if Arrieta pitches to a 4.70 ERA for rest of this year, he'd still be a disappointment. He'd still be "bad," IMO.

What's the use in saying he's not as bad as he's seemed, but he's still bad? The Orioles need better than what's he's been, and they need better than what, evidently, you think he might be. Honestly...you could've at least stuck to your guns in re: FIP...but you're not even confident enough to say that Arrieta can/will halve the distance between his actual ERA and his FIP by the season's close.

You're right...this conversation isn't productive.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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,

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..

I did concede that some of the issues probably relate to luck, but tERA has him at 4.93 which is almost a full run more than his FIP and 1.2 runs more than his xFIP....... not nearly as favorable. rWAR, which doesn't give an ERA equivalent, and is even more in depth (based on batted balls/location/trajectory and normalizes defense etc) holds him at a negative WAR. That's not an ERA, but I'm guessing it's closer to his actual ERA than FIP is and probably similar or a little worse than tERA.

I did not discount DIPS theory in it's entirety. I considered it in my logic. It means you have to look deeper in some cases. I think it was COC that provided provided a study by Mike Fast that widely discounts some of the basic premises of DIPS theory and pitcher control of babip.

You have have to look at things on a case-by-case basis. Arrieta in 2012 is a prime example.

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,

But if you're talking about Arrieta, then your logic fails. There is no reason to conclude this with respect Arrieta right now. SIERA/FIP/XFIP assume an allocation of batted balls and a normalized babip. That is not what we have this year. If Arrieta continues going the way he's going, he will continue to be bad and have a high babip. As an example, Matusz had a 10 plus ERA and a 4.90 FIP last year. If he continues to be bad he will not be a starting pitcher. He will only normalzie when he begins to pitch better and stops getting hit hard. That may be when he gets sent to the BP. He may never make it as a starter, or his FIP normalizes towards his ERA and eventually rises.

...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.

It is saying something to me and I don't exclude it. It's saying it's not particularly relevant in this case, in large part because the factors that make DIPs theory relevant are largely out of whack.

[Flash- bd]

You're making a lot of assumptions in your third paragraph (ie, "If Arrieta continues going the way he's going, he will continue to be bad and have a high babip."---Arrieta's BABIP does not follow from his LD%, that is, there's no causational link between the two. Correlational yes, but there could be years in which Arrieta has the same LD% and HR/FB and has much lower BABIP and ERA's respectively).

Either way, your point really misses the following: all of your qualifications are limited because SIERA, as you note, doesn't take a lot of them into account in its formula YET it's still been shown to be the most predictive. That alone suggests that some of the factors you are most interested in aren't perhaps ultimately as relevant as you think they are/want them to be.

As for the tERA, two points to consider: tERA is on a skewed scale, it's a little higher than ERA, so the fact that his tERA has him at 4.93 doesn't mean it's saying his ERA should be 4.93. The highest tERA in the league is 2.77 and the 10th highest is 3.41 whereas the highest ERA in the league is 2.00 and 10th highest 2.53.

Secondly, tERA is not supposed to be predictive as much as it is supposed to give a measure of how a pitcher's performing taking into account batted ball data as well as peripheral data/park factors/fielding. 4.93, or a little bit lower, to adjust for the skew of tERA (say 4.80), sounds about right to me for what Jake has looked like this year. (ie, a 4.80 ERA pitcher) That says nothing of the future, though.

[SrMeowMeow]

Sigh...all the statistics and logic in the world amount to very little, in my estimation, if all you can say is that Arrieta will probably pitch to a less-than-4.91 ERA for the remainder of the season, and anything else comes down to "odds." Even if Arrieta pitches to a 4.70 ERA for rest of this year, he'd still be a disappointment. He'd still be "bad," IMO.

What's the use in saying he's not as bad as he's seemed, but he's still bad? The Orioles need better than what's he's been, and they need better than what, evidently, you think he might be. Honestly...you could've at least stuck to your guns in re: FIP...but you're not even confident enough to say that Arrieta can/will halve the distance between his actual ERA and his FIP by the season's close.

You're right...this conversation isn't productive.

A 4.01 ERA isn't bad, it's good. A 4.70 ERA isn't bad, it's usable. Hey! I just repeated my last post. Signing off.

[SteveO]

Like most things in baseball, once you get past the surface, it's hard to say for sure. I'd take the under on 4.91 ERA for the rest of 2012, like I said. Anything else would depend on odds. And your tone suggests this is going nowhere. My argument is held together, not by "pixie dust and happy thoughts", but by statistics, logic, and a lack of an agenda. Since clearly a dozen posts trying to articulate a somewhat subtle point have been completely disregarded in favor of being argumentative, I'm not going to pursue this any farther with you.

As a wise man once said, "the only reason to argue is to learn something new". And in this case, all I'm learning is not to try to debate with someone when their pride is involved.

I get it...your smarter than the rest of us and we clearly do not understand. You somehow want us to believe that a guy who has a >5.00 ERA over the past two seasons and is 3-9 with an ERA approaching 6.00 is actually really good.....but we are the dummies.

Look isolated statistics never tell the whole story. Myself and several others have gone so far as to say Arrieta might be better than the ERA, Record, Whip, QS % say he is in terms of talent and potential but your so fixated on the couple of stats that support your stance and then you have the nerve to talk about debating someone when pride is involved. Your right the debate is a waste of time. Anyone with two eyeballs and common sense can tell Jake is struggling in his current role. Even the Orioles were conceding that by putting him in the bullpen before injury gave him the start in Pittsburgh. But no....your right lol.

[SrMeowMeow]

I get it...your smarter than the rest of us and we clearly do not understand. You somehow want us to believe that a guy who has a >5.00 ERA over the past two seasons and is 3-9 with an ERA approaching 6.00 is actually really good.....but we are the dummies.

Look isolated statistics never tell the whole story. Myself and several others have gone so far as to say Arrieta might be better than the ERA, Record, Whip, QS % say he is in terms of talent and potential but your so fixated on the couple of stats that support your stance and then you have the nerve to talk about debating someone when pride is involved. Your right the debate is a waste of time. Anyone with two eyeballs and common sense can tell Jake is struggling in his current role. Even the Orioles were conceding that by putting him in the bullpen before injury gave him the start in Pittsburgh. But no....your right lol.

I don't want you to believe anything. But feel free to tell me where I said Jake is actually really good.

[crissfan172]

Matusz earned 1.3 million last year and again this year is earning 1.3 million.

Arrieta is in the 400Ks. Tillman is in the 400Ks. Britton is in the 400Ks as well.

Why did this happen? Did they think Matusz was going to be really really good much better than the other three? Is there a reason why he's earning so much more than the others?

I am disappointed with Matusz big time. Arrieta isn't far behind. Tillman and Britton I thought would be doing better this far in their career but I am hoping they come up to the MLB team and do well this year....

Edit: Just realized it... Matusz must be because of being a 1st round pick #4. Ouch that bites. I had forgotten that he was a #4 pick lol wow he has really gone downhill these last few years. Is there something wrong with our organization developing pitchers??? Is that possible a reason why we traded away Kyle Simon after drafting him last year...

Well it wasn't just because he was a 1st round pick. They thought he would go through the minors quickly (which he did), so they gave him a ML contract (and a spot on the 40-man) with a smaller bonus.