The Big Five Starters - not so bad?

[jtschrei]

1. I am confident we will add a Joe Saunders type to this mix for depth and to take some pressure off of Gausman. I think Gausman could make the leap. He has amazing stuff. I'm not sure that slider is ready for the show. If it is, we have a #3 for this year and a #2 or #1 next.

2. People who are counting on Britton for anything are being overly hopeful. I mean, he has been downright bad for 2 years, including in the minors. He was last effective in 2011. I don't think he's on the team come May.

3. The bullpen has been depleted with the loss of Jim Johnson. We have chosen to replace that hole.

4. For us to compete, the starters have to pitch well, and have no regression, a la Jason Hammel. I mean, who predicted how bad he would be before last season. None of these guys can have regression if we are going to compete.

Basically, all of these guys have to pitch well. Simple as that. Last year, the Red Sox had guys like Hanrahan and Bailey who did not pan out and they still won and won and won. We don't have that luxury. Everyone, position players and pitchers have to have good seasons with little to no regression. I see a .500 team? but that's why they play the games

[SilentJames]

That number is for the whole staff. The starters were not as good as the relievers.

Yes, but later in the thread we addressed that.

[tntoriole]

Of course we are.

We have proven that to be the case. The Orioles are not a worse team going into 14, but the question is how much better will they likely be.

The Orioles are banking on internal development and bounce back years from Wieters and Markakis. They are looking for Jones and Machado to stay the course and Davis to be a 40ish homerun threat.

They need OBP, they could use another arm, they need a more solid answer for DH.

Maybe Urrutia/ Reimold/ Lough are the answer for DH/LF

I guess we just differ in terms of the likelihood of the underlying assumptions being made going into 2014.

"Bounce back years from Wieters and Markakis" Optimistic, in my view, as one could easily say that they are both one year older and Matt will have even more wear and tear as catcher which will not likely jack up his offensive stats any more than they were in 2013. Markakis may have been injured or he may just have declined in production and keep on that path (we will know this soon enough). Machado had a great first half, tailed off somewhat in 2nd half but is now returning after his first injury. This could easily lead to worse production in 2014 than last year from Machado. Davis hitting 40 is possible, but that still is worse than his 2013 production. It assumes that Ryan Flaherty is going to have better production this year than Brian Roberts provided last year...maybe, but his stats thus far reveal 162 games in big leagues at .221 average and his production in April and May have been horrific. It assumes that David Lough will perform better than Nate McClouth did in 2013. It assumes that Tommy Hunter (or fill in the blank) as closer will perform better than Johnson and that there will be no decline in the bullpen performance given the moving parts and ripple effects and initial loss of Patton. And it assumes that there will be continued improvements and no regression to any of the three of Tillman, Chen, Gonzalez and that Norris will be solid. It assumes contributions from Kevin Gausman that i believe are premature in 2014. I disagree that the team is, on paper, better now than entering 2013 and that team won 85 games. But they may well outperform our expectations as there are many candidates on the 40 man roster for catching lightning in a bottle or, sadly, they may be even worse than expectations.

[SilentJames]

1. I am confident we will add a Joe Saunders type to this mix for depth and to take some pressure off of Gausman. I think Gausman could make the leap. He has amazing stuff. I'm not sure that slider is ready for the show. If it is, we have a #3 for this year and a #2 or #1 next.

2. People who are counting on Britton for anything are being overly hopeful. I mean, he has been downright bad for 2 years, including in the minors. He was last effective in 2011. I don't think he's on the team come May.

3. The bullpen has been depleted with the loss of Jim Johnson. We have chosen to replace that hole.

4. For us to compete, the starters have to pitch well, and have no regression, a la Jason Hammel. I mean, who predicted how bad he would be before last season. None of these guys can have regression if we are going to compete.

Basically, all of these guys have to pitch well. Simple as that. Last year, the Red Sox had guys like Hanrahan and Bailey who did not pan out and they still won and won and won. We don't have that luxury. Everyone, position players and pitchers have to have good seasons with little to no regression. I see a .500 team? but that's why they play the games

The Red Sox won last year largely because Lester and Buchholz magically remembered how to pitch, Ortiz continues to defy age age and science, They got ridiculous production from guys like Nava, Salty, Napoli, and Gomes.

Salty is gone, so is Ellsbury. Drew is likely gone, they are going to be relying more on guys like Lavarnaway, Bogaerts, Bradley, and Middlebrooks. That could work out well for them, but it is just as much a question mark as some of the things the Orioles are dealing with.

Victorino is another thing, does he continue to put up those type of numbers? :Looking at his splits he had a .970 OPS in august, but sub 800's every other month.

[srock]

That number is for the whole staff. The starters were not as good as the relievers.

Yes, but later in the thread we addressed that.

But don't we need to look at both? Bullpen performance is usually related to starting pitching performance. The more innings and less runs allowed by starters leads to less innings and lower leverage situations for the bullpen. So separating the two is useful, but incomplete.

This is my biggest concern with the current staff, which is a comprised of good pitchers. But they do not go deep into games and the starters 5, 6, and 7 on the depth chart (guys who likely will get significant number of innings) are not reliable. Hence, the bullpen will get abused.

[Frobby]

But don't we need to look at both? Bullpen performance is usually related to starting pitching performance. The more innings and less runs allowed by starters leads to less innings and lower leverage situations for the bullpen. So separating the two is useful, but incomplete.

This is my biggest concern with the current staff, which is a comprised of good pitchers. But they do not go deep into games and the starters 5, 6, and 7 on the depth chart (guys who likely will get significant number of innings) are not reliable. Hence, the bullpen will get abused.

There was almost no difference in the number of innings pitched by our starters in 2012 (937.2) and 2013 (939.0), yet the performance of the bullpen was much better in 2012. So, while I do think that more innings from the starters helps the bullpen, there is still a lot of independence between the performance of the starters and that of the bullpen. No doubt, however, that we need to get more innings from our starters.

[SteveA]

Orioles starters gave up 4.38 runs per game, league average was 4.29. Orioles starters had a 48% quality start percentage, league average was 51%.

They were below average overall, they were very bad in key categories (HRs allowed for example). But all in all they averaged out to be a slightly below average squad.

They were slightly below average when in the game, and they also pitched fewer innings than most starting staffs, all of which put even more pressure on the bullpen. The bullpen wasn't good enough, and it didn't help that it had to ptich so many innings.

Gonzalez & Chen simply don't seem to be able to go 6+ innings consistently, any time they are pitching past the 5th you are on very thin ice. I don't see how that's going to change. That was one reason I wanted Arroyo, so whatever else you will about his talent, I think he could have gone deeper in a lot more games and took some stress off our pen.

[srock]

That number is for the whole staff. The starters were not as good as the relievers.

Yes, but later in the thread we addressed that.

There was almost no difference in the number of innings pitched by our starters in 2012 (937.2) and 2013 (939.0), yet the performance of the bullpen was much better in 2012. So, while I do think that more innings from the starters helps the bullpen, there is still a lot of independence between the performance of the starters and that of the bullpen. No doubt, however, that we need to get more innings from our starters.

I kinda think this supports the argument that 2012 was an outlier of all outliers for bullpen performance.

[Frobby]

They were slightly below average when in the game, and they also pitched fewer innings than most starting staffs, all of which put even more pressure on the bullpen. The bullpen wasn't good enough, and it didn't help that it had to ptich so many innings.

Gonzalez & Chen simply don't seem to be able to go 6+ innings consistently, any time they are pitching past the 5th you are on very thin ice. I don't see how that's going to change. That was one reason I wanted Arroyo, so whatever else you will about his talent, I think he could have gone deeper in a lot more games and took some stress off our pen.

Gonzo and Chen really aren't that bad. Gonzo averaged a little over 6 IP per start, and Chen averaged 5.96. Chen's number is a little misleading because he had one start cut short due to a long rain delay, and also had to be pulled from the game where he strained his oblique. Neither of these guys is a true workhorse, but you could do a lot worse.

One point about SilentJames' statement that "Orioles starters gave up 4.38 runs per game, league average was 4.29." I'm not sure where he is getting that. Our starters had a 4.57 ERA, league average was 4.17.

[OFFNY]

.

In a vacuum, a "Not so bad" starting rotation could potentially get us between 83 and 88 wins.

Adding Ervin Santana would perhaps change the description from "Not so Bad" to somewhere in between "Pretty Good" and "Good," and might tack on an additional 4-7 wins. And as I stated, that's in a vacuum, without taking into consideration the numerous other factors that figure into a team's 162-game season.

I hope that we get Santana.

And speaking of starting pitchers named "Santana," I wouldn't mind if Duquette also signed Johan to a minor league contract, too. If I recall correctly, he wouldn't be ready to pitch in the majors until at least June or July, but if we can scoop him up on the cheap, I think that we should.

(FROM SATURDAY)

Johan Santana: (Shoulder) Bullpen Session for Scouts Soon

http://news.rotowire.com/Johan-Santana-googid470493-spmlb.htm

[OFFNY]

Sure, we definitely could really use more depth in the starting rotation. But it's not as bad as some make it seem. Let's look at what we actually have and what they did last year.

Tillman: 33 starts, 206 innings, 3.71 ERA

Gonzalez: 28 starts, 171 innings, 3.78 ERA

Chen: 23 starts, 137 innings, 4.07 ERA

Norris: 32 starts, 176 innings, 4.18 ERA (with Orioles and Houston)

Tillman and Norris made every start, Gonzalez only missed four, and even Chen, who was injured, missed only about nine. So we have a relatively hardy group here.

Now we throw Gausman into the mix. He has never been on the disabled list, and as far as I know has no injury problems. From another thread, projections from Steamer, Oliver, PECOTA, and ZiPs project his ERA next year as 3.97, 3.94, 3.86, and 4.28. (Disclaimer: I only vaguely know about these four groups, but I'm assuming they know something about what they're saying.) Let's say say 4.00. Then we have five starters who, when their ERA's are averaged together, come out to 3.95. (It'd actually be lower since our better starters would get more innings.)

Assuming Gausman meets these projections and continues to be healthy, then based on last year, we'd only need about 13 starts from someone outside these five starters. Let's be conservative, and say 20.

So for 142 games, we have starting pitchers with ERA's of 3.95. Now assume we make up the other 20 games with starters with 5.00 ERA's. Realistically, they'd pitch less innings per game than the other pitchers, and so would have less effect on the starting pitching overall ERA. But that just hides the fact that we'd have to bring in relievers early, and that probably won't work out well. So let's assume they work they same number of innings on average as the others. (Let's be conservative here.) Then the starting pitching ERA comes out as 4.08. Realistically, since our better pitchers (such as Tillman) will pitch more innings, it would be more like 4.00.

Where does this put us in the AL East? Last year the starting pitcher ERA was as follows:

TBR: 3.81

BOS: 3.84

NYY: 4.08

BAL: 4.57

TOR: 4.81

So around 4.00, or something close to that, combined with a strong offense, would likely keep us in the hunt for the playoffs.

Some things do need to go right for this to happen, of course. Gausman has to live up to projections. Norris has to pitch in the AL East roughly like he did outside it. (And remember that if he or Gausman is the 5th starter, they'll have fewer starts.) And we have to have relatively healthy starting pitching, with no major injuries.

Throw in last year's offense, with perhaps improvement from Wieters and Markakis, and we're looking pretty strong. Bottom line - to make the playoffs, a team has to play well, so if we're looking to make the playoffs, we have to assume that our playes will play well and be relatively healthy. If they do, then things get interesting.

Secretly (OK, not so secret now), I'd just as much like to bring in one more good hitter than another starter. Bringing in another starter improves us about as much as the difference in his WAR and the weakest of our current starting five, which isn't really much. (Plus the games where we have an injured starter.) Bringing in another good hitter could match or exceed that. Bad pitching knocks teams out of contention, but with decent pitching, the offense can carry the team just as much as pitching.

Having said all this, it still would be nice to add a sub 4.00 ERA starter to the mix for depth and to give us better starters in those projected 20 games when a starter is injured.

I just remembered this one.

Since acquiring Ubaldo Jimenez, we have upgraded from "Not so Bad" to ...... well, I don't know what you would call it, but I believe that it's better than "Not so bad."

[OFFNY]

Sure, we definitely could really use more depth in the starting rotation. But it's not as bad as some make it seem. Let's look at what we actually have and what they did last year.

Tillman: 33 starts, 206 innings, 3.71 ERA

Gonzalez: 28 starts, 171 innings, 3.78 ERA

Chen: 23 starts, 137 innings, 4.07 ERA

Norris: 32 starts, 176 innings, 4.18 ERA (with Orioles and Houston)

Tillman and Norris made every start, Gonzalez only missed four, and even Chen, who was injured, missed only about nine. So we have a relatively hardy group here.

Now we throw Gausman into the mix. He has never been on the disabled list, and as far as I know has no injury problems. From another thread, projections from Steamer, Oliver, PECOTA, and ZiPs project his ERA next year as 3.97, 3.94, 3.86, and 4.28. (Disclaimer: I only vaguely know about these four groups, but I'm assuming they know something about what they're saying.) Let's say say 4.00. Then we have five starters who, when their ERA's are averaged together, come out to 3.95. (It'd actually be lower since our better starters would get more innings.)

Assuming Gausman meets these projections and continues to be healthy, then based on last year, we'd only need about 13 starts from someone outside these five starters. Let's be conservative, and say 20.

So for 142 games, we have starting pitchers with ERA's of 3.95. Now assume we make up the other 20 games with starters with 5.00 ERA's. Realistically, they'd pitch less innings per game than the other pitchers, and so would have less effect on the starting pitching overall ERA. But that just hides the fact that we'd have to bring in relievers early, and that probably won't work out well. So let's assume they work they same number of innings on average as the others. (Let's be conservative here.) Then the starting pitching ERA comes out as 4.08. Realistically, since our better pitchers (such as Tillman) will pitch more innings, it would be more like 4.00.

Where does this put us in the AL East? Last year the starting pitcher ERA was as follows:

TBR: 3.81

BOS: 3.84

NYY: 4.08

BAL: 4.57

TOR: 4.81

So around 4.00, or something close to that, combined with a strong offense, would likely keep us in the hunt for the playoffs.

Some things do need to go right for this to happen, of course. Gausman has to live up to projections. Norris has to pitch in the AL East roughly like he did outside it. (And remember that if he or Gausman is the 5th starter, they'll have fewer starts.) And we have to have relatively healthy starting pitching, with no major injuries.

Throw in last year's offense, with perhaps improvement from Wieters and Markakis, and we're looking pretty strong. Bottom line - to make the playoffs, a team has to play well, so if we're looking to make the playoffs, we have to assume that our playes will play well and be relatively healthy. If they do, then things get interesting.

Secretly (OK, not so secret now), I'd just as much like to bring in one more good hitter than another starter. Bringing in another starter improves us about as much as the difference in his WAR and the weakest of our current starting five, which isn't really much. (Plus the games where we have an injured starter.) Bringing in another good hitter could match or exceed that. Bad pitching knocks teams out of contention, but with decent pitching, the offense can carry the team just as much as pitching.

Having said all this, it still would be nice to add a sub 4.00 ERA starter to the mix for depth and to give us better starters in those projected 20 games when a starter is injured.

We're more than halfway into the season, and our starting pitching has been ...... not so bad.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2014-starter-pitching.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/split.cgi?t=p&team=BAL&year=2014

[OFFNY]

o

Another good game last night (from Wei-Yin Chen.)

The Orioles' starters have not been bad at all.

In fact, they have been very good for more than 2 months, now.

[Frobby]

o

Another good game last night (from Wei-Yin Chen.)

The Orioles' starters have not been bad at all.

In fact, they have been very good for more than 2 months, now.

I'm giving Dave Wallace some credit here. His teachings are sinking in. I'm seeing a lot of good low and away fastballs.

[flyhighbirds]

With all the whining about the offense not being as good as it was supposed to be, maybe our pitching is better than we thought it would be.