Hammel-Chen-Tillman-Britton-Gonzalez

[Flash- bd]

Yes, his odds are greatly improved over last year say. But that still doesn't prove anything. I think the people that are being "skeptical" have history and odds on their side.

That's the thing: they really don't. As I pointed out, it's about as useful using Tillman's past stats to project future performance as it is to use Jason Hirsh's stats to project Chris Tillman's performance. Tillman has gained 4+ (94.0 this year, 89.5 in 2011, 90.5 in 2010) MPH on his FB, has improved his change-up (2.56 pitch value/100 compared to 1.20/1.94/.28 in years prior and throwing it more 17.6% compared to 11.9%/10.8%/13.6% in years prior) and has improved his command. Do you realize how big of a difference that is? How much difference does a 4 MPH increase in FB velocity, a grade or two advance in change-up (5 to 6, or 4.5 to 6.5 maybe on the scouting scale) and improvement in command make for say, a prospect's draft value? The answer is probably about 25 rounds all other things equal.

Chris Tillman of 2011 and 2010 was a complete non-prospect for me if you simply considered his stuff at the time and ruled out the possibility of a rebound of his stuff to previous levels or a jump in stuff (as has happened) due to frame and projectability. Tillman of 2010/2011 had a mediocre-bad FB (straight, 88-91), a mediocre change-up, a decent-good curveball, and mediocre-bad command. That makes his stuff, I don't know, comparable to Josh Tomlin with much worse command.

Those that are practically assuring us that Tillman should be counted on going into the future don't have much more than blind faith.

Better stuff will undoubtedly help Tillman. There's still a lot more that goes into being a ML starting pitcher than stuff.

Better stuff will undoubtedly help Tillman. Scouts make major distinctions between players all the time based on MUCH finer margins than the difference between Tillman of 2012 and 2011/2010. And if there's much more to a ML pitcher than stuff--all that I can think of is command + mentality. His command is demonstrably better (presumably) due to his refinement of his mechanics, and if you want to go the murky, really unarguable areas of "tangibles", it would be very hard to argue his mentality/demeanor has done anything but improve from age 21 to age 24.

So you're right. There's more that goes into being a ML SP than stuff. And Tillman has improved in those areas as well.

Chris Tillman is like, I don't know, 100% (as in 2x) better than the 2011/2010 version of Chris Tillman. If he simply had a different name and wore a mask it would clear up a lot of confusion on this board.

[sangar]

I doubt anybody, PA or DD, have a hard and fast rule like that.

IIRC, didn't AM offer Bedard a 4 year extension before opting to deal him?

Contract insurance escalates dramatically for contracts extending beyond three years. Most teams are reluctant to pay the extra premiums, but I'm sure most will make allowances in the right circumstances.

I can't specifically address the Orioles' policy but the Dodgers have stated this on several occasions.

[Pickles]

That's the thing: they really don't. As I pointed out, it's about as useful using Tillman's past stats to project future performance as it is to use Jason Hirsh's stats to project Chris Tillman's performance. Tillman has gained 4+ (94.0 this year, 89.5 in 2011, 90.5 in 2010) MPH on his FB, has improved his change-up (2.56 pitch value/100 compared to 1.20/1.94/.28 in years prior and throwing it more 17.6% compared to 11.9%/10.8%/13.6% in years prior) and has improved his command. Do you realize how big of a difference that is? How much difference does a 4 MPH increase in FB velocity, a grade or two advance in change-up (5 to 6, or 4 to 6 maybe) and improvement in command make for say, a prospect's draft value? The answer is probably about 25 rounds.

Chris Tillman of 2011 and 2010 was a complete non-prospect for me if you simply considered his stuff at the time and ruled out the possibility of a rebound of his stuff to previous levels or a jump in stuff (as has happened) due to frame and projectability. Tillman of 2010/2011 had a mediocre-bad FB (straight, 88-91), a mediocre change-up, a decent-good curveball, and mediocre-bad command. That makes his stuff, I don't know, comparable to Josh Tomlin with much worse command.

Better stuff will undoubtedly help Tillman. Scouts make major distinctions between players all the time based on MUCH finer margins than the difference between Tillman of 2012 and 2011/2010. And if there's much more to a ML pitcher than stuff--all that I can think of is command + mentality. His command is demonstrably better (presumably) due to his refinement of his mechanics, and if you want to go the murky, really unarguable areas of "tangibles", it would be very hard to argue his mentality/demeanor has done anything but improve from age 21 to age 24.

So you're right. There's more that goes into being a ML SP than stuff. And Tillman has improved in those areas as well.

As I stated I just think this is the most optimistic take of Tillman you could have.

I admit, and so does everybody else, his stuff is better than before RIGHT NOW. Is there no chance his stuff degrades again? That certainly exists. It is largely predicated on improved mechanics; is there no chance his mechanics degrade again? Certainly that is a possibility.

To say that he's matured or improved his composure, is certainly in the eye of the beholder. When forced to get 4 outs the other day he couldn't even make it out of the first. That's borderline unacceptable.

I take no joy in raining on your parade. I've always supported Tillman and I still do. When others suggested in the past it was time to write him off, I cautioned patience. I've been encouraged in reports from Peterson and Jim earlier this year that he was making improvements even when they didn't show up in the stat line. But when I see unbounded optimism, I again caution pragmatism.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I agree with the cautious optimism sentiments, but it is almost like we are looking at two different pitchers right now.

[Flash- bd]

As I stated I just think this is the most optimistic take of Tillman you could have.

I admit, and so does everybody else, his stuff is better than before RIGHT NOW. Is there no chance his stuff degrades again? That certainly exists. It is largely predicated on improved mechanics; is there no chance his mechanics degrade again? Certainly that is a possibility.

To say that he's matured or improved his composure, is certainly in the eye of the beholder. When forced to get 4 outs the other day he couldn't even make it out of the first. That's borderline unacceptable.

I take no joy in raining on your parade. I've always supported Tillman and I still do. When others suggested in the past it was time to write him off, I cautioned patience. I've been encouraged in reports from Peterson and Jim earlier this year that he was making improvements even when they didn't show up in the stat line. But when I see unbounded optimism, I again caution pragmatism.

I've bolded that^ part because the unbounded optimism/my parade stuff isn't worth responding to (I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm not particularly offended by it either) because I think I've already shown here my optimism has real reasons behind it, and I think I have and can further argue my position well. Like you said, eye of the beholder, for you it's optimism, for me it's reasonable expectation. But unbounded optimism doesn't fit at all, unless you want to go back and really refute a lot of what I'm arguing here: unbounded optimism is saying Chris Davis will hit 30-35 HRs in a season in his prime, unbounded optimism is saying Xavier Avery will become a plus defender solely based on his speed, or that Adam Jones will consistently be a 6.5-8 WAR player, or that Nick Markakis will return to his .890-.910 OPS form, or that Jim Johnson will maintain a 93% save/BS rate for his whole career. I'm not taking up a position at all like that.

Now, to the bolded: I actually agree with this concern, and well, it concerns me. Once Tillman establishes his value--which, as you know, I'm confident he will--he might be an interesting trade candidate, especially if Dylan Bundy is in Baltimore.'

EDIT: also, let me qualify my optimism a bit. My optimism is based on the Chris Tillman we see right now--I am projecting Chris Tillman with the stuff and command he has now out into the future. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of all the terrible things that can befall a pitcher, just as I'm not unaware of the risk discussed just above. It's just that when I argue, I don't like to get into that TNSTAAPP stuff because we all know those risks and it makes for a boring argument. As someone--his name will come to me here soon and I'll edit, because he deserves credit--said on this board: if there's no such thing as a pitching prospect there's no such thing as a dependent/established pitcher. No one's going to factor in a possible drop in velocity or injury in Cole Hamels projection over the next 2-3 years--even though it's arguably equally as likely to occur in his case as it is in Tillman's--so why should I have to make such boring qualifications with Tillman as well?

[Il BuonO]

I'm one of his biggest supporters, but until he becomes consistent nothing else matters. If he starts to string together victories at the ML level like he did at AAA he will be alright.

[Pickles]

I've bolded that^ part because the unbounded optimism/my parade stuff isn't worth responding to (I don't mean that in a condescending way, I'm not particularly offended by it either) because I think I've already shown here my optimism has real reasons behind it, and I think I have and can further argue my position well. Like you said, eye of the beholder, for you it's optimism, for me it's reasonable expectation. But unbounded optimism doesn't fit at all, unless you want to go back and really refute a lot of what I'm arguing here: unbounded optimism is saying Chris Davis will hit 30-35 HRs in a season in his prime, unbounded optimism is saying Xavier Avery will become a plus defender solely based on his speed, or that Adam Jones will consistently be a 6.5-8 WAR player, or that Nick Markakis will return to his .890-.910 OPS form, or that Jim Johnson will maintain a 93% save/BS rate for his whole career. I'm not taking up a position at all like that.

Now, to the bolded: I actually agree with this concern, and well, it concerns me. Once Tillman establishes his value--which, as you know, I'm confident he will--he might be an interesting trade candidate, especially if Dylan Bundy is in Baltimore.'

EDIT: also, let me qualify my optimism a bit. My optimism is based on the Chris Tillman we see right now--I am projecting Chris Tillman with the stuff and command he has now out into the future. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of all the terrible things that can befall a pitcher, just as I'm not unaware of the risk discussed just above. It's just that when I argue, I don't like to get into that TNSTAAPP stuff because we all know those risks and it makes for a boring argument. As someone--his name will come to me here soon and I'll edit, because he deserves credit--said on this board: if there's no such thing as a pitching prospect there's no such thing as a dependent/established pitcher. No one's going to factor in a possible drop in velocity or injury in Cole Hamels projection over the next 2-3 years--even though it's arguably equally as likely to occur in his case as it is in Tillman's--so why should I have to make such boring qualifications with Tillman as well?

Your optimism isn't unfounded to me; it just seems unbounded. You qualify it a bit, but projecting Tillman as a solid, good starting pitcher going forward isn't the same thing as saying Davis can hit 30 hrs a year. Davis has done something like that. Tillman's never been close to good at the ML level for anything approaching any signifigant time. And no, saying the odds of a degradation in Hamels' projection and Tillman's are the same is not realistic either. Hamels has a long record of success at the highest level; Tillman doesn't. You say you understand these things, but you really honestly don't seem to. I'm not trying to be snarky either; I just really disagree w you.

BTW, if you're truly concernced/accepting that Tillman can possibly regress in the future, can't you admit that it might happen BEFORE he establishes his value? Why is the possibility destined to only be a concern AFTER he establishes his value?

[Flash- bd]

Your optimism isn't unfounded to me; it just seems unbounded. You qualify it a bit, but projecting Tillman as a solid, good starting pitcher going forward isn't the same thing as saying Davis can hit 30 hrs a year. Davis has done something like that. Tillman's never been close to good at the ML level for anything approaching any signifigant time.

You're right, Tillman's case is more likely. This is the thing I find so funny about you so-called realists, you totally over-emphasize track record, and your insistence on track record actually leads to less likely projections. There is a very small chance Chris Davis hits 30 HR in a year more than once in his career. He doesn't make enough strong contact to do so.

And no, saying the odds of a degradation in Hamels' projection and Tillman's are the same is not realistic either. Hamels has a long record of success at the highest level; Tillman doesn't. You say you understand these things, but you really honestly don't seem to. I'm not trying to be snarky either; I just really disagree w you.

I know you disagree with me, that's obvious, because you're not reading my posts very well, but really just disagreeing with them, the online equivalent of shaking your fist. It's funny you say I "don't seem to" understand these things when you didn't understand my point at all. Did I say anything about track record? I was speaking about pitcher's vulnerabilities to injury fluctuations in ability (ie, vulnerability to sudden drops in velocity which can have HUGE effects on performance)... read again: " No one's going to factor in a possible drop in velocity or injury in Cole Hamels projection over the next 2-3 years--even though it's arguably equally as likely to occur in his case as it is in Tillman's--so why should I have to make such boring qualifications with Tillman as well?"

BTW, if you're truly concernced/accepting that Tillman can possibly regress in the future, can't you admit that it might happen BEFORE he establishes his value? Why is the possibility destined to only be a concern AFTER he establishes his value?

It seems to me very unlikely a guy makes mechanical refinements, matches up to his projectability/finds velocity that was expected from his frame and arm strength, is subject to a bio-mechanical analysis with very strong results (I read an interesting article about bio-mechanics in the NBA and how it could've saved the ill-fated Trailblazers and how they ignored bio-mechanical analysis that strongly suggested future injuries in guys like Oden + Roy...I'm not an NBA fan at all but I think bio-mechanical analyses in sports have a lot of worth...they've proved very successful in world football as well and Ars?ne Wenger, one of the best sports minds--if not the best--in the world highly emphasizes it and uses it actively w/ his players) will just suddenly lose it all. But, given that Tillman's velocity has shown it can fluctuate wildly from year to year, I would consider trading him down the line--as, say--the Giants might've done with Lincecum after 3-4 years of success, or the Mariners might've done with Hernandez. Again, this is less to do with Tillman (though, as I said, I do think it's fair to say the risk is slightly--but negligibly--higher in his case) and more to do with pitchers in general.

EDIT: basically, any speculation that Tillman's risk of a drop in velocity or risk of injury is any greater than that of someone like Hamels is just that: complete speculation, and that includes my remark above that a potential regression to earlier velocities "concerns me." In truth, as I suggested above, there's actually more reason to believe Tillman's velocity will be sustained for the reasons given above. (It probably concerns me more on a kind of emotional/personal level, as it would simply be extremely disappointing to see him lose the velocity he has gained. That is, it concerns me in a kind of intuitional way--read: having nothing to do with reason--not unlike the feeling we all get when things are going right for the Orioles or an Oriole where in the back of the mind we are always wondering: when will the other shoe drop?

[Moose Milligan]

Still need to see more from Tillman...he's been impressive in 2/3 starts but the uptick in velocity is nice. Gonzalez needs to stick around some to prove that he's legit

Hammel needs to do it again next year.

There's still a lot of question marks revolving around the names mentioned, but there's reason to have interest there.

[tilgaham]

How big would it be if we could get a sub 4.00ERA from Chris Tillman for the rest of the season. Forget next season. That's a shot in the arm for a pennant race going on right NOW.

[wildcard]

Still need to see more from Tillman...he's been impressive in 2/3 starts but the uptick in velocity is nice. Gonzalez needs to stick around some to prove that he's legit

Hammel needs to do it again next year.

There's still a lot of question marks revolving around the names mentioned, but there's reason to have interest there.

Totally agree we need to see more, much more. However it would not surprise me that in October we look back on the season and conclude that the chance out of Matusz and Arrieta for Gonzo, Tillman and Britton was the turning point of the season.

This team was headed for a very bad place and these guys have helped change that direction. Where is the direction goes next is anyones guess.

That is why we need to see much, much more.

[Pickles]

You're right, Tillman's case is more likely. This is the thing I find so funny about you so-called realists, you totally over-emphasize track record, and your insistence on track record actually leads to less likely projections. There is a very small chance Chris Davis hits 30 HR in a year more than once in his career. He doesn't make enough strong contact to do so.

No, you're right. Track record is the last place you'd want to look if you want to know what a player's going to do/capable of in the future. That's why the study of history is a worthless endeavor.

I know you disagree with me, that's obvious, because you're not reading my posts very well, but really just disagreeing with them, the online equivalent of shaking your fist. It's funny you say I "don't seem to" understand these things when you didn't understand my point at all. Did I say anything about track record? I was speaking about pitcher's vulnerabilities to injury fluctuations in ability (ie, vulnerability to sudden drops in velocity which can have HUGE effects on performance)... read again: " No one's going to factor in a possible drop in velocity or injury in Cole Hamels projection over the next 2-3 years--even though it's arguably equally as likely to occur in his case as it is in Tillman's--so why should I have to make such boring qualifications with Tillman as well?"

Their odds of being injured might be the same, but their odds of being a good ML pitcher going forward are not in the same zip code.

For some odd reason, you think my only objection to Tillman's future is injury. It far exceeds that.

It seems to me very unlikely a guy makes mechanical refinements, matches up to his projectability/finds velocity that was expected from his frame and arm strength, is subject to a bio-mechanical analysis with very strong results (I read an interesting article about bio-mechanics in the NBA and how it could've saved the ill-fated Trailblazers and how they ignored bio-mechanical analysis that strongly suggested future injuries in guys like Oden + Roy...I'm not an NBA fan at all but I think bio-mechanical analyses in sports have a lot of worth...they've proved very successful in world football as well and Ars?ne Wenger, one of the best sports minds--if not the best--in the world highly emphasizes it and uses it actively w/ his players) will just suddenly lose it all. But, given that Tillman's velocity has shown it can fluctuate wildly from year to year, I would consider trading him down the line--as, say--the Giants might've done with Lincecum after 3-4 years of success, or the Mariners might've done with Hernandez. Again, this is less to do with Tillman (though, as I said, I do think it's fair to say the risk is slightly--but negligibly--higher in his case) and more to do with pitchers in general.

Eh. I'm not so sold on bio-mechanics. I will say this: Pitchers mechanics, w their stuff, degrade all the time, for no apparent reason. If Rick Peterson (or anyone) could truly control that, he'd be making a lot more money.

EDIT: basically, any speculation that Tillman's risk of a drop in velocity or risk of injury is any greater than that of someone like Hamels is just that: complete speculation, and that includes my remark above that a potential regression to earlier velocities "concerns me." In truth, as I suggested above, there's actually more reason to believe Tillman's velocity will be sustained for the reasons given above. (It probably concerns me more on a kind of emotional/personal level, as it would simply be extremely disappointing to see him lose the velocity he has gained. That is, it concerns me in a kind of intuitional way--read: having nothing to do with reason--not unlike the feeling we all get when things are going right for the Orioles or an Oriole where in the back of the mind we are always wondering: when will the other shoe drop?

I just don't get why Tillman is so special that 2 starts, out of 3 mind you, and the middle start was an epic disaster, is so special as not to be bound by the laws that every other pitcher on Earth seems to be.

6 weeks ago, I cautioned people from saying that Matusz was an "above-average" starter going forward, that could just be counted on for that. I got jumped a bit for that, and some of those same people are saying similar things about Tillman now. I guess I'm a genius for showing my skepticism then. Oh, wait- I'm not. Skepticism should be the natural view of a young pitcher attempting to establish himself at the ML level.

[Flash- bd]

6 weeks ago, I cautioned people from saying that Matusz was an "above-average" starter going forward, that could just be counted on for that. I got jumped a bit for that, and some of those same people are saying similar things about Tillman now. I guess I'm a genius for showing my skepticism then. Oh, wait- I'm not. Skepticism should be the natural view of a young pitcher attempting to establish himself at the ML level.

Good for you. 6 weeks ago I said people should stop *****ing about Flaherty being on the roster because he has potential much better than that of Andino. 6 weeks ago I took up pretty much the same line as you about Matusz...I was more optimistic but never thought as highly of him as I do now of Tillman (or Britton, for that matter) and said that he seemed farther than putting it together than Arrieta. Months ago I said that Wieters returning to the high .700 OPS territory was not just a slump but a regression to the mean. 6 weeks ago I weighed a lot of reports from Lucky Jim, Weams, and others and said I think Tillman could have success at the ML level. Some of those are "optimistic" predictions, some of those are "pessimistic" predictions. One of your (many) skeptical predictions coming true means nothing...

As for the other stuff, you're doing a straw-man thing (specifically in your 1st and 2nd points after the 1st and 2nd quotes), so I think it's got to the point where it's clear you just want to argue your point for the sake of arguing your point. As a response to your sarcastic track record comment: you said Chris Davis has done something close to hitting 30 HRs and Tillman hasn't done something close to being a reliably good big league SP, thus Chris Davis is more likely to do said achievement. That, right there, is a distillation of the flaw with this whole track record nonsense you (I'm not speaking to you directly, but more a general category of posters like you) want to foist on people incessantly. By that logic, J.J. Hardy is more likely to be a consistent .825 OPS guy at SS than Manny Machado because he got close to that last year. By that logic, well, I could go on and on with the ad absurdum thing, so I won't, but that's bad logic, plain and simple.

[Roll Tide]

The Orioles need another starter ...Preferrably one that can start game #1 or #2.

[Pickles]

Good for you. 6 weeks ago I said people should stop *****ing about Flaherty being on the roster because he has potential much better than that of Andino. 6 weeks ago I took up pretty much the same line as you about Matusz...I was more optimistic but never thought as highly of him as I do now of Tillman (or Britton, for that matter) and said that he seemed farther than putting it together than Arrieta. Months ago I said that Wieters returning to the high .700 OPS territory was not just a slump but a regression to the mean. 6 weeks ago I weighed a lot of reports from Lucky Jim, Weams, and others and said I think Tillman could have success at the ML level. Some of those are "optimistic" predictions, some of those are "pessimistic" predictions. One of your (many) skeptical predictions coming true means nothing...

As for the other stuff, you're doing a straw-man thing (specifically in your 1st and 2nd points after the 1st and 2nd quotes), so I think it's got to the point where it's clear you just want to argue your point for the sake of arguing your point. As a response to your sarcastic track record comment: you said Chris Davis has done something close to hitting 30 HRs and Tillman hasn't done something close to being a reliably good big league SP, thus Chris Davis is more likely to do said achievement. That, right there, is a distillation of the flaw with this whole track record nonsense you (I'm not speaking to you directly, but more a general category of posters like you) want to foist on people incessantly. By that logic, J.J. Hardy is more likely to be a consistent .825 OPS guy at SS than Manny Machado because he got close to that last year. By that logic, well, I could go on and on with the ad absurdum thing, so I won't, but that's bad logic, plain and simple.

The best way to show that I'm making a strawman argument, is to present one yourself. Well done.

This is going nowhere. So I'll concede. Chris Tillman is well on his way to establishing himself as a good ML starter, and any viewpoint expressing skepticism of that indisputable fact, is ignorant.