TT: Arrieta takes lead in 5th starter competition

[Frobby]

There are haters here despite your belief. Every year from Ramon Hernandez, Melvin Mora, M. Gonzalez (embarrassingly booed at a opening day introductions) Kevin Gregg, Mark Reynolds, even Adam Jones..there is always someone that takes the brunt of criticism and little or no praise when they do well and some that rarely get critiqued. It is the nature of the blog. Jake is certainly worthy of severe criticism for his uneven performance. He is also worthy of something other than he was ok , but... You are usually pretty balanced and I respect and try to look at your perspective openly. IMO opinion, the other two potential number 5 guys have been just uneven as Jake. That's all.

Hmmmm, how to answer a post I half agree with and half disagree with? Yeah, there have been some players who get unduly criticized by some posters for every little thing they do wrong. But I don't think Jake has gotten more than his share over the years. He really does need to throw more strikes and get ahead in the count more, despite not allowing any runs in his last two outings. But I'd stil say that was a good outing yesterday, and agree that he's been no more uneven that others competing for the 5th spot. He set a pretty high standard for the others to meet in their next start IMO.

[El Gordo]

Jake as a long way to go before he gets into the same league as Melmo, DCab, and Felix P. Now those guys got some serious hate. Still do. Jake has to pitch way better than Matusz, Britton, S.Johnson or Jurrjens to have a shot at the #5 spot, because he has dug himself a deeper hole IMO.

[BROOK5]

I want to be clear on my position: I like Jake. I think he can be a solid major league starter if he makes a few adjustments. I just don't think he has "TOR potential". He's 27 years old and still struggling with consistency and command. I don't know too many TOR pitchers with that profile.

I'm not even disagreeing with that sentiment - he's getting to the point where if you label it potential, it doesn't matter much. My point wasn't solely regarding his velocity, because IMO, his curveball looked very good at times and his fastball has good movement. This isn't Daniel Cabrera who threw flat 95 MPH fastballs and lacked control, but he is all over the place in terms of control.

The gap in control/consistency is why I said "potential", but I understand that gap is a huge one, so maybe that's the big discrepancy in opinion.

[bird watcher]

It was an interesting start for sure. You can tell by what posters here are taking away from it. Some say it was a positive because of the overall results and others say the walks are a harbinger of the evil to come.

It sounds like in the first inning he may have been a bit lucky that runs didn't score. He was hit pretty hard despite the outs.

To me this is a neutral start that doesn't really give us any indication of what is to come. I still need to see more which may ultimately mean he starts in AAA. If Matusz or Britton can really step up in their next start I don't think it matters what Jake does because he is behind the curve (due to last year's results).

[kyleott]

Well, what is it, then? I don't think his secondary stuff is all that good.

Scouts always talk about "flashing plus" on secondaries. Jake has done this multiple times, imo. It comes back to -- as it does with all of the conversations about Arrieta -- doing it consistently.

[mdbdotcom]

TJ McFarland could be the big surprise of the spring. Maybe he earns the 5th starter spot.

[Frobby]

I'm not even disagreeing with that sentiment - he's getting to the point where if you label it potential, it doesn't matter much. My point wasn't solely regarding his velocity, because IMO, his curveball looked very good at times and his fastball has good movement. This isn't Daniel Cabrera who threw flat 95 MPH fastballs and lacked control, but he is all over the place in terms of control.

The gap in control/consistency is why I said "potential", but I understand that gap is a huge one, so maybe that's the big discrepancy in opinion.

I tend to think of command as being something that can only be taught/acquired to a degree. Players who have mediocre command can get better, but I feel that truly excellent, consistent command is a talent you can't teach, just as much as top velocity is.

[Frobby]

This isn't Daniel Cabrera who threw flat 95 MPH fastballs and lacked control, but he is all over the place in terms of control.

The gap in control/consistency is why I said "potential", but I understand that gap is a huge one, so maybe that's the big discrepancy in opinion.

We used to hear "TOR potential" about Cabrera all the time. Cabrera actually had done more by age 26 than Arrieta has done. Whether Arrieta develops into a better pitcher than DCab remains to be seen, though I'm optimistic.

[Il BuonO]

Yeah, Arrieta has the TOR potential that not many have, BUT that only matters to a point. He can't have so many walks and throw so many balls. It's tough to watch a guy take over a game and dominate hitters one day, and then not be able to throw a strike the next time out.

I hope he puts it all together and realizes his full potential, but who knows if that'll ever happen.

Why does he have TOR potential? Because he can throw 95 at times? I'm very tired of good velocity being mistaken for TOR potential. I just recently posted the FB speeds of the top 15 in fWAR over the last three seasons, and there's only a mild correlation between velocity and being a TOR. There are TOR guys who throw under 90 mph like Jared Weaver, and a lot of TOR guys who throw softer than Arrieta.

In my opinion, Arrieta has no more TOR potential than Tillman, Britton or Matusz.

He didn't mention anything in his post about velocity. You did. It's more than that. As he said, what is frustrating about Jake is that he can look dominating at times and then look like he's gone completely off the rails.

Well, what is it, then? I don't think his secondary stuff is all that good.

As I said you brought the velocity into the discussion. Brooks had said how it's hard to watch him for lack of consistency. And I commented on that, but can you tell me where I have ever called him a TOR?

[cmurter]

Jake's got a good fastball, few will debate that. I think his problem is directly related to his ability to throw secondary pitches FOR STRIKES. The slider and changeup are average at best mlb pitches, and he doesnt have great control of them.

The curve is a 12-6 hammer that many would describe as a plus offering, and an effective out pitch. When behind in the count, though its tough to throw it over without either burying it or it hanging one thigh high.

I know if I was batting against Jake, as soon as the count gets to 1-0, 2-0, I'm looking dead red, ready to crush an off speed mistake.

[Can_of_corn]

Jake's got a good fastball, few will debate that. I think his problem is directly related to his ability to throw secondary pitches FOR STRIKES. The slider and changeup are average at best mlb pitches, and he doesnt have great control of them.

The curve is a 12-6 hammer that many would describe as a plus offering, and an effective out pitch. When behind in the count, though its tough to throw it over without either burying it or it hanging one thigh high.

I know if I was batting against Jake, as soon as the count gets to 1-0, 2-0, I'm looking dead red, ready to crush an off speed mistake.

He doesn't even command his FB well.

[SrMeowMeow]

Can we seriously stop calling anyone who doesn't passionately love every Orioles player a "hater"? It's pathetic. We're all fans here. I like to be objective. If we're not going to discuss reality, why have the forum? And I say this as someone who literally has a pair of orange sunglasses sitting on my desk as I type.

[Il BuonO]

Can we seriously stop calling anyone who doesn't passionately love every Orioles player a "hater"? It's pathetic. We're all fans here. I like to be objective. If we're not going to discuss reality, why have the forum? And I say this as someone who literally has a pair of orange sunglasses sitting on my desk as I type.

You're the hater for trying to exclude the hater talk.

[SrMeowMeow]

You're the hater for trying to exclude the hater talk.

Your face is the hater.

[Il BuonO]

Your face is the hater.

Totally oblivious that might be a dead giveaway.