Trade Jim Johnson!

[Number5]

Your argument about the poor Tigers defense affecting Porcello is very weak. He pitches with the same defense as:

Verlander, 2.64 ERA, 1.06 WHIP 0.74 GB/FB 1.05 GO/AO

Scherzer, 3.74 ERA, 1.27 WHIP 0.59 GB/FB 0.74 GO/AO

Fister, 3.45 ERA, 1.19 WHIP 1.10 GB/FB 1.62 GO/AO

Smyly, 3.99 ERA, 1.27 WHIP 0.69 GB/FB 0.89 GO/AO

Sanchez, 3.74 ERA, 1.29 WHIP 0.85 GB/FB 1.14 GO/AO

and then they is:

Porcello, 4.59 ERA, 1.53 WHIP 1.16 GB/FB 1.81 GO/FO

Actually, I think his point is valid. If you take your chart one step farther, and include ground ball to fly ball ratios and ground ball outs to all outs ratios, I think you can see how a more solid infield defense would probably improve Porcello's ERA/WHIP stats significantly. I have added those columns to your chart above. Of the other Tigers starters, only Fister has Ground ball ratios approaching Porcello's, and Fister does also strike guys out more-so than Porcello. Most of the other Tigers starters don't compare at all to Porcello when it comes to ground ball ratios, as you can see. They are different types of pitchers. Porcello needs to be on the right team with a stout infield defense to excel, IMO. The numbers certainly seem to suggest this. Having said that, I would not overpay for him, since it is obvious that he is pretty much out of Detroit's plans right now. The Tigers have, in effect, devalued him, IMO. I certainly would not include Hardy in a trade for Porcello, as doing so would defeat the whole purpose of supporting Porcello with a superior infield defense, IMO.

[wildcard]

Actually, I think his point is valid. If you take your chart one step farther, and include ground ball to fly ball ratios and ground ball outs to all outs ratios, I think you can see how a more solid infield defense would probably improve Porcello's ERA/WHIP stats significantly. I have added those columns to your chart above. Of the other Tigers starters, only Fister has Ground ball ratios approaching Porcello's, and Fister does also strike guys out more-so than Porcello. Most of the other Tigers starters don't compare at all to Porcello when it comes to ground ball ratios, as you can see. They are different types of pitchers. Porcello needs to be on the right team with a stout infield defense to excel, IMO. The numbers certainly seem to suggest this. Having said that, I would not overpay for him, since it is obvious that he is pretty much out of Detroit's plans right now. The Tigers have, in effect, devalued him, IMO. I certainly would not include Hardy in a trade for Porcello, as doing so would defeat the whole purpose of supporting Porcello with a superior infield defense, IMO.

The problem with him is he made 3.1M last year and may get 4.5 or 5M this year in arbitration. He is getting expensive and his performance does not match his cost. That is why the Tigers are trying to trade him.

Porcello value to the O's IMO is that he has a option left and he is young. I am not sure is he better than Britton or Steve Johnson.

[Number5]

The problem with him is he made 3.1M last year and may get 4.5 or 5M this year in arbitration. He is getting expensive and his performance does not match his cost. That is why the Tigers are trying to trade him.

Porcello value to the O's IMO is that he has a option left and he is young. I am not sure is he better than Britton or Steve Johnson.

I hear what you are saying, and agree that he is not with that kind of money pitching for the Tigers. On the right team, however, I think that the value would be there. As I said the price has to be right before I'd pull the trigger. I've read where people are suggesting Hardy, Johnson, or a package including both Strop and Reimold. I'm with you on saying no to those kinds of trades. To me, Strop for Porcello is fair and helps both teams. Any more than that, and the Tigers can keep him as their spot starter/long man and watch his value drop precipitously, as far as I'm concerned.

[Frobby]

The problem with him is he made 3.1M last year and may get 4.5 or 5M this year in arbitration. He is getting expensive and his performance does not match his cost. That is why the Tigers are trying to trade him.

Porcello value to the O's IMO is that he has a option left and he is young. I am not sure is he better than Britton or Steve Johnson.

He's more reliable than Britton or Johnson, though. You know what you are getting, more or less. Britton may have more upside, but I'm not sure. Porcello is actually a year younger, but has four full seasons under his belt.

[Number5]

I hear what you are saying, and agree that he is not with that kind of money pitching for the Tigers. On the right team, however, I think that the value would be there. As I said the price has to be right before I'd pull the trigger. I've read where people are suggesting Hardy, Johnson, or a package including both Strop and Reimold. I'm with you on saying no to those kinds of trades. To me, Strop for Porcello is fair and helps both teams. Any more than that, and the Tigers can keep him as their spot starter/long man and watch his value drop precipitously, as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: Worth. Weird... I know I typed worth. I hat auto-correct. LOL

[The Rick]

The problem with him is he made 3.1M last year and may get 4.5 or 5M this year in arbitration. He is getting expensive and his performance does not match his cost. That is why the Tigers are trying to trade him.

Porcello value to the O's IMO is that he has a option left and he is young. I am not sure is he better than Britton or Steve Johnson.

Fangraph's had him at 2.7 WAR in '11 worth $12.3M, and 2.9 WAR in '12 worth $13.2M. I think you're greatly undervaluing a reliable #4'ish starter (who is just 24 next season and has the upside to be a high #3, low end #2, IMO).

[Frobby]

One of my worries about Porcello is that the Tigers put a lot of innings on his arm at a very young age. He's thrown 692 innings the last four years -- you'd be hard pressed to find another 23-year old who threw that many even if you consider minor league service. The Tigers did the same thing with Bonderman and he was done pitching by age 27.

[Number5]

One of my worries about Porcello is that the Tigers put a lot of innings on his arm at a very young age. He's thrown 692 innings the last four years -- you'd be hard pressed to find another 23-year old who threw that many even if you consider minor league service. The Tigers did the same thing with Bonderman and he was done pitching by age 27.

I understand what you are saying, but I think there is a big difference between a strike-out guy, like Bonderman was at that time, throwing that many innings and a pitch-to-contact ground ball guy with good command like Porcello.

[Can_of_corn]

One of my worries about Porcello is that the Tigers put a lot of innings on his arm at a very young age. He's thrown 692 innings the last four years -- you'd be hard pressed to find another 23-year old who threw that many even if you consider minor league service. The Tigers did the same thing with Bonderman and he was done pitching by age 27.

Bonderman signed a minor league deal with the Mariners and is going to try and pitch in 2013.

I understand what you are saying, but I think there is a big difference between a strike-out guy, like Bonderman was at that time, throwing that many innings and a pitch-to-contact ground ball guy with good command like Porcello.

I would love to see proof that "pitch to contact" guys have less stressful innings then "strike out" guys.

(At a quick eyeball I will say that Porcello's pitch count in games does look to be a bit lower then Bonderman's but that may be due to a number of factors)

[Number5]

Bonderman signed a minor league deal with the Mariners and is going to try and pitch in 2013.

I would love to see proof that "pitch to contact" guys have less stressful innings then "strike out" guys.

(At a quick eyeball I will say that Porcello's pitch count in games does look to be a bit lower then Bonderman's but that may be due to a number of factors)

Looks like you've pretty much answered your own question. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would think that a ground-ball guy throws as many pitches as a strike-out guy. Common sense tells me so, I guess, but your confirmation by looking at the pitch counts works, too.

[Can_of_corn]

Looks like you've pretty much answered your own question. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would think that a ground-ball guy throws as many pitches as a strike-out guy. Common sense tells me so, I guess, but your confirmation by looking at the pitch counts works, too.

No it doesn't. Not at all. He could have been being pulled due to ineffectiveness for example.

"Common sense" told everyone that quality pitchers could regularly induce weak contact from hitters until Voros McCracken ran the numbers.

Edit- Verlander had 9.03 K/9 and 15.8 P/IP last season. Porcello had 5.46 K/9 and 16.0 P/IP

Felix Hernandez had 8.65 K/9 and only 14.6 P/IP

[Number5]

No it doesn't. Not at all. He could have been being pulled due to ineffectiveness for example.

"Common sense" told everyone that quality pitchers could regularly induce weak contact from hitters until Voros McCracken ran the numbers.

We are discussing the fact that he has pitched so many innings. Clearly, that runs counter to him being pulled for ineffectiveness. My statement stands, as does your confirmation. I'm not sure what kind of argument you are attempting to make.

[Can_of_corn]

We are discussing the fact that he has pitched so many innings. Clearly, that runs counter to him being pulled for ineffectiveness. My statement stands, as does your confirmation. I'm not sure what kind of argument you are attempting to make.

Low strike out guys tend to have more baserunners which add to the stress level in the innings pitched. Strike out pitchers do not have elevated pitch counts compared to "pitch to contact" guys.

Striking out guys doesn't make you throw more pitches, throwing balls instead of strikes does.

[Number5]

Low strike out guys tend to have more baserunners which add to the stress level in the innings pitched. Strike out pitchers do not have elevated pitch counts compared to "pitch to contact" guys.

Striking out guys doesn't make you throw more pitches, throwing balls instead of strikes does.

As I initially posted, I mentioned Porcello as a ground ball guy that has good command. He walks fewer guys than Bondeman did, not more. My statement stands, as does your confirmation.

[Can_of_corn]

I understand what you are saying, but I think there is a big difference between a strike-out guy, like Bonderman was at that time, throwing that many innings and a pitch-to-contact ground ball guy with good command like Porcello.

As I initially posted, I mentioned Porcello as a ground ball guy that has good command. He walks fewer guys than Bondeman did, not more. My statement stands, as does your confirmation.

No.

You posited that was a difference between a strike out guy and a pitch to contact guy. You can not now change your argument to a good command guy versus poor command guy and say your position did not change.

You have not only not given any proof to prove your position, you are misrepresenting the proof I have shown to prove the opposite.

If you would like to change your premise then go right ahead but don't pretend that is what you meant the whole time.

Of course if you do change your premise you might want to consider that:

Porcello-63% strikes thrown for his career

Bonderman-63% strike thrown for his career