The starting pitching so far -- not awful, but uninspiring

[mikethegimp]

The way I see it, the pitching is fine. Buck doesn't yank these guys at the right times. He's trying to get the most out of them. And that's OK, except they're walking guys and giving up consecutive hits in the innings that he pushes it. Then the bullpen comes in already under stress when the starter shouldn't have even started that inning. When the starter is dominating and we're up by 5 runs, then save the bullpen. Buck did this last year too. Its aggregating to watch.

[wildcard]

To be honest, I'm not counting on any of those three to replicate what they did last year over a full season. I'm counting on al three to be solid, along with Chen, and for the 5th starter to be much better than Hunter/Matusz/Arrieta were last year. I'm assuming we'll still have some bad starts, but hopefully we won't have 69 starts by pitchers whose ERA (as a starter) is 5.00 or higher. By the way, that was actually an improvement over 2011, when we had 86 starts by starters with ERAs of 5.00 or higher. In fact, it was our lowest total since 2006, when we had only 53 starts by starters at 5.00+. But I'm hoping we can keep improving the back part of the rotation.

I agree that we can't count of the three doing what they did last year but they have set the bar at that high level for each of them. And we should be watching to see if they can reach that level for a full year or even do better because the defense should be better for this year.

[Frobby]

I agree that we can't count of the three doing what they did last year but they have set the bar at that high level for each of them. And we should be watching to see if they can reach that level for a full year or even do better because the defense should be better for this year.

Good point about the defense. There are going to be a lot fewer hits to the left side with Manny and Nate in the field.

[sfosfan]

As long as they increase the number of dominant starts I don't really care about consistency. I'd rather Tillman throw a 3-hitter every fourth start with a few bad starts mixed in, rather than him just go 6-7 innings with 2-3 runs every time.

Not me. I'll take the the 6-7 innings giving up 2-3 runs. That's a quality start and nothing wrong with that. A 3-hitter is nice, but not "with a few bad starts mixed in". Less bad starts, more quality starts. Chris has the stuff to throw the no-hitter at some point and that's not going to change anytime soon.

[MachadOboutManny]

Realistically, I'm hoping for a starter ERA around 4.00 this year. Last year it was 4.42, but much better in the second half.

Im hoping for the same. I dont like Tillman as much as most, I think Chen is going to struggle, I love Hammel, I love Gonzo, and I dont know what we do for the 5th spot but I think someone takes a firm hold of that spot before the AS break. We have too much talent, imo, for it not to "click" for Britton/Jake/Johnson/etc. I think we have another guy who is capable of breaking out.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not me. I'll take the the 6-7 innings giving up 2-3 runs. That's a quality start and nothing wrong with that. A 3-hitter is nice, but not "with a few bad starts mixed in". Less bad starts, more quality starts. Chris has the stuff to throw the no-hitter at some point and that's not going to change anytime soon.

If Tillman throws a nine-inning 3-hitter he's going to allow 0 or 1 run the vast majority of the time. In those games in 2012 the worst team in baseball won 97% of the time. You're almost guaranteed to win a game like that.

In 2012 teams that allowed six runs in a game still won about 1/3 of the time. Teams win roughly 25% of the time when you count all games that they allowed at least 5 runs.

And teams that allowed three runs in a game won about 65% of the time. That's total runs, not just by the starter.

So if you break it down... a team that allows three runs every single game wins 65% of the time.

But a team that has 40 games where it allows 0 or 1 runs, 82 games where it allows 3 runs, and 40 games where it allows 6 runs, will win 102 games. Which is exactly what they'd win if they just allowed three runs every single game.

Consistency is a wash, and in some cases it might be counterproductive.

[Tx Oriole]

4/2 - 6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER (Hammel)

4/3 - 5.2 IP, 2 R, 2 ER (Chen)

4/4 - 6.1 IP, 2 R, 2 ER (Gonzalez)

4/5 - 5.0 IP, 5 R, 5 ER (Arrieta)

4/6 - 3.2 IP, 5 R, 5 ER (Tillman)

4/7 - 6.2 IP, 4 R, 4 ER (Hammel)

4/8 - 6.1 IP, 3 R, 3 ER (Chen)

4/10 - 5.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER (Arrieta)

4/11 - 5.1 IP, 2 R, 2 ER (Tillman)

4/12 - 6.0 IP, 3 R, 2 ER (Gonzalez)

4/13 - 6.0 IP, 3 R, 2 ER (Hammel)

4/14 - 6.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER (Chen)

Totals - 68 IP, 38 R, 36 ER -- 4.76 ERA, 5.75 IP/start

It's not really awful, but not exactly setting the world on fire. We definitely need to step it it a notch if we want to contend this year.

Maybe so Frobby. But it is still early. I believe they can pick it up.

[Tx Oriole]

Does anyone feel the weather has been a big factor in the performances so far?

Boston and NY were just awful weather wise.

I think it could be.

[Tx Oriole]

The way I see it, the pitching is fine. Buck doesn't yank these guys at the right times. He's trying to get the most out of them. And that's OK, except they're walking guys and giving up consecutive hits in the innings that he pushes it. Then the bullpen comes in already under stress when the starter shouldn't have even started that inning. When the starter is dominating and we're up by 5 runs, then save the bullpen. Buck did this last year too. Its aggregating to watch.

Knew someone would get around and blame Buck somehow.

[Frobby]

The way I see it, the pitching is fine. Buck doesn't yank these guys at the right times. He's trying to get the most out of them. And that's OK, except they're walking guys and giving up consecutive hits in the innings that he pushes it. Then the bullpen comes in already under stress when the starter shouldn't have even started that inning. When the starter is dominating and we're up by 5 runs, then save the bullpen. Buck did this last year too. Its aggregating to watch.

Last year, the O's were 5th in the league in "bequeathed runners" by the starters with 231, compared to a league average of 224. So, the O's were pretty much in the middle of the pack in terms of leaving a starter in the game until he had put some baserunners on. The team with the fewest was Tampa, but I don't know if that's due to a difference in philosophy or a difference in quality. The team with the most bequeathed runners by the starters was Kansas City, with Boston a close 2nd. There's a pretty close correlation between the number of quality starts a team has, and the number of bequeathed runners the starters leave (i.e., more quality starts -> fewer bequeathed runners).

Bottom line for me is this: Buck is managing to win the game, but he's also managing to have a successful season. You can't have a successful season if the bullpen throws 3+ innings every single day. So sometimes, Buck pushes his starters a little bit in order to keep the bullpen innings manageable over the long term. Even so, the O's were only 10th last year in IP by the starters. In my opinion, Buck is right to push his starters to the extent he does, for the long term good of the team. Does that mean the team may occasionally lose a game it might have won if the starter had been pulled earlier? Maybe, but it's part of what allows the bullpen to be effective over 162 games.

[wildcard]

Last year, the O's were 5th in the league in "bequeathed runners" by the starters with 231, compared to a league average of 224. So, the O's were pretty much in the middle of the pack in terms of leaving a starter in the game until he had put some baserunners on. The team with the fewest was Tampa, but I don't know if that's due to a difference in philosophy or a difference in quality. The team with the most bequeathed runners by the starters was Kansas City, with Boston a close 2nd. There's a pretty close correlation between the number of quality starts a team has, and the number of bequeathed runners the starters leave (i.e., more quality starts -> fewer bequeathed runners).

Bottom line for me is this: Buck is managing to win the game, but he's also managing to have a successful season. You can't have a successful season if the bullpen throws 3+ innings every single day. So sometimes, Buck pushes his starters a little bit in order to keep the bullpen innings manageable over the long term. Even so, the O's were only 10th last year in IP by the starters. In my opinion, Buck is right to push his starters to the extent he does, for the long term good of the team. Does that mean the team may occasionally lose a game it might have won if the starter had been pulled earlier? Maybe, but it's part of what allows the bullpen to be effective over 162 games.

This is why I think we may see Hunter traded this summer. Hunter was supposed to be a multi inning guy. But he really is not. The O's need a couple of guys that can go three or four innings when called on in the pen. McFarland may be one. And the O's may trade Hunter to make room for Wada or Steve Johnson to be the other. With Gausman coming, one to the starters could be moved to the pen to get those innings in the pen.

One of the reasons I think this year's pen may be strong the last year is that the O's will have stronger middle and long relief pitchers.

[Frobby]

This is why I think we may see Hunter traded this summer. Hunter was supposed to be a multi inning guy. But he really is not. The O's need a couple of guys that can go three or four innings when called on in the pen. McFarland may be one. And the O's may trade Hunter to make room for Wada or Steve Johnson to be the other. With Gausman coming, one to the starters could be moved to the pen to get those innings in the pen.

One of the reasons I think this year's pen may be strong the last year is that the O's will have stronger middle and long relief pitchers.

In my opinion, Hunter certainly is capable of being a multi-inning guy. Last year his ERA was 2.25 first inning, 1.80 second inning, 3.60 third inning.

The myth about Hunter is that he's a dominant pitcher if limited to one inning. He's homer-prone no matter how he's used.

I do think he could be traded or DFA'd in a couple of months, because of the other pitchers available in the system.

[Frobby]

I just think of Steve Johnson in Hunter's place and I get all giddy. If he can repeat what he did last year, our bullpen would look ridiculous. MacFarland, S. Johnson, Matusz, Patton, even O'Day can all go multiple innings.

I root for Steve Johnson to succeed, but I'm still a bit skeptical of the guy. I find it a little hard to believe that a guy with a 4.17 MiL ERA is going to be an above average major league pitcher, despite his excellent success in Norfolk and Baltimore last year. I'm reminded of how Josh Towers looked so good through 12 starts in 2001 (2.22 ERA), or how good Brad Bergesen looked in 19 starts in 2009 (3.43 ERA). For that matter, Tommy Hunter was pretty darned good for Texas in 2009-10 (3.90 ERA in 41 starts). I hope Johnson can keep pitching well, but I just have my doubts.

[DrungoHazewood]

In my opinion, Hunter certainly is capable of being a multi-inning guy. Last year his ERA was 2.25 first inning, 1.80 second inning, 3.60 third inning.

The myth about Hunter is that he's a dominant pitcher if limited to one inning. He's homer-prone no matter how he's used.

If Hunter can throw to a 2.00 ERA I don't really care if he's homer-prone. You might have to adjust when he comes into a game, and try to limit the chances of a multi-run homer. But an awful lot of relievers are flyball and home run prone. George Sherrill had one of the more extreme flyball rates of any MLB pitcher and he was a fine reliever.

I just think of Steve Johnson in Hunter's place and I get all giddy. If he can repeat what he did last year, our bullpen would look ridiculous. MacFarland, S. Johnson, Matusz, Patton, even O'Day can all go multiple innings.

Can and Do are two different things. You just don't have all that many cases in today's game where a reliever is called upon to throw 2-3 innings in a non-blowout. A handful of extra-inning games, mostly. If 2+ inning stints were common you wouldn't need 7 or 8 relievers.

I root for Steve Johnson to succeed, but I'm still a bit skeptical of the guy. I find it a little hard to believe that a guy with a 4.17 MiL ERA is going to be an above average major league pitcher, despite his excellent success in Norfolk and Baltimore last year. I'm reminded of how Josh Towers looked so good through 12 starts in 2001 (2.22 ERA), or how good Brad Bergesen looked in 19 starts in 2009 (3.43 ERA). For that matter, Tommy Hunter was pretty darned good for Texas in 2009-10 (3.90 ERA in 41 starts). I hope Johnson can keep pitching well, but I just have my doubts.

The jury is certainly still out on Johnson. This is still a guy who got hit around pretty good in Norfolk in '11, was taken in the Rule 5 draft by the Giants and returned, was acquired as partial payment for 1.5 years of George Sherrill, and has a career minor league ERA over 4.00.

You never know with pitchers. But his '12 performance was somewhat out of character.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think you have to look a little deeper with Johnson than just his career ERA in the minors. He's a guy who struggled a little at each level but then succeeded. I'm not saying his ML numbers last year aren't over his head, just that he has had a knack for success at each level.

It's normal for players to improve repeating a minor league level. And I don't think that's something that translates to the majors. I'm speaking in generalities, there are always exceptions.