Some observations about Brian Matusz

[mdbdotcom]

Flaherty must have been shocked that Pujols got there so soon. I sure was.

[DrungoHazewood]

Let the record reflect: Brian Matusz did his job tonight against Josh Hamilton. Ryan Flaherty did not. It goes in the record book as if Matusz allowed a game-tying single in 0 IP.

Yes. He did.

And people wonder why there are things like FIP. I understand what the Victorian-era guys were doing when they came up with the concepts for unearned runs and errors and the like, but there may not be a more convoluted and wacky construct in major sports (it's neck-and-neck with balks). Try explaining this to a non-fan... "so you're telling me there are these 'errors' but this instance of fielding stupidity doesn't count as one for some technical reason, and then there's this whole other part where you imagine what might have happened if the error didn't happen and assign credit or blame to the pitcher or not based on that, and oh wait that wasn't even an error."

[mdbdotcom]

And people wonder why there are things like FIP. I understand what the Victorian-era guys were doing when they came up with the concepts for unearned runs and errors and the like, but there may not be a more convoluted and wacky construct in major sports (it's neck-and-neck with balks). Try explaining this to a non-fan... "so you're telling me there are these 'errors' but this instance of fielding stupidity doesn't count as one for some technical reason, and then there's this whole other part where you imagine what might have happened if the error didn't happen and assign credit or blame to the pitcher or not based on that, and oh wait that wasn't even an error."

And if Tillman had thrown to 1B last night (instead of the backstop) he would have gotten an out and been charged with an earned run. And, the batter would have gotten credit for an RBI. Instead, by making an error Tillman helped his own stats, though it could have cost us the game.

[Carllamy]

Let the record reflect: Brian Matusz did his job tonight against Josh Hamilton. Ryan Flaherty did not. It goes in the record book as if Matusz allowed a game-tying single in 0 IP.

I'm not sure that this is what the record would show.

I listened to Wall to Wall Baseball on the radio after the game last night. Dave Johnson talked about this play. He said that Buck talked about the play after the game and Buck said that the set-up to the play was that Flaherty had told Hardy before the play that he (Flaherty) was being positioned far into the hole between 1st and 2nd and so he wasn't sure that he could make it to 2nd on a groundball for the force. The implication here is that Flaherty believed that Hardy should look primarily to go to 1st on a groundball.

Also, according to Dave Johnson, he believed from the way the play played out that Flaherty was slow getting to the bag because the ball was hit more towards the bag at 2nd causing Hardy to range towards 2nd to field it and that he (Flaherty), who already thought Hardy would look primarily to throw to 1st on a grounder, did not want to position himself at an angel that would interfere with Hardy's throw to first.

Lastly, and this one I can attest to myself because I saw it on the replay, Flaherty still got to 2nd before the runner in enough time that he could have received the throw for a successful force play, but Hardy by then had chosen to throw to 1st.

I do believe that Flaherty made a judgment error by not going hard to 2nd on the batted ball, but there was some input by Hardy here was well, and also, the play was far more complicated than it appeared and would have ended better for the O's if Hardy had made different decisions in either of two decision points.

[BMann]

And if Tillman had thrown to 1B last night (instead of the backstop) he would have gotten an out and been charged with an earned run. And, the batter would have gotten credit for an RBI. Instead, by making an error Tillman helped his own stats, though it could have cost us the game.

I guess that's one (skewed) way to look at it. If Tillman really wanted to help his own stats, he should've made a better throw to the plate and gotten the runner out at home. That would've certainly increased his chances of getting a Win, which (for some silly reason) is still considered a Big Stat for starting pitchers during contract negotiations.

IMO, the problem wasn't with Tillman's decision-making, but with his execution.

[Aristotelian]

I'm not sure that this is what the record would show.

I listened to Wall to Wall Baseball on the radio after the game last night. Dave Johnson talked about this play. He said that Buck talked about the play after the game and Buck said that the set-up to the play was that Flaherty had told Hardy before the play that he (Flaherty) was being positioned far into the hole between 1st and 2nd and so he wasn't sure that he could make it to 2nd on a groundball for the force. The implication here is that Flaherty believed that Hardy should look primarily to go to 1st on a groundball.

Also, according to Dave Johnson, he believed from the way the play played out that Flaherty was slow getting to the bag because the ball was hit more towards the bag at 2nd causing Hardy to range towards 2nd to field it and that he (Flaherty), who already thought Hardy would look primarily to throw to 1st on a grounder, did not want to position himself at an angel that would interfere with Hardy's throw to first.

Lastly, and this one I can attest to myself because I saw it on the replay, Flaherty still got to 2nd before the runner in enough time that he could have received the throw for a successful force play, but Hardy by then had chosen to throw to 1st.

I do believe that Flaherty made a judgment error by not going hard to 2nd on the batted ball, but there was some input by Hardy here was well, and also, the play was far more complicated than it appeared and would have ended better for the O's if Hardy had made different decisions in either of two decision points.

Good post. People bash Flaherty every chance they get. Even if it was a bad judgment call on Flaherty's part, this makes a lot more sense than the "Flaherty was being lazy" explanation.

[bobmc]

Flaherty must have been shocked that Pujols got there so soon. I sure was.

Even Buck credited him in his presser post game.

On Ryan Flaherty not covering second base on Josh Hamilton's grounder to J.J. Hardy in the seventh

"He's where he's supposed to be. He's not too far over. He told J.J., 'I'm going to try to get there. I might be able to get there.' And he tried to get there and J.J. made the decision to throw to first. And hats off to Hamilton for running the ball out. And hats off to (Albert) Pujols for getting out there with a big enough lead to make him throw across the diamond."

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2014/07/showalter-speaks-after-7-6-12-inning-win.html

[mdbdotcom]

I guess that's one (skewed) way to look at it. If Tillman really wanted to help his own stats, he should've made a better throw to the plate and gotten the runner out at home. That would've certainly increased his chances of getting a Win, which (for some silly reason) is still considered a Big Stat for starting pitchers during contract negotiations.

IMO, the problem wasn't with Tillman's decision-making, but with his execution.

I wasn't questioning Tillman's decision-making or execution, but noting the oddity of the way the stats are kept.

[Old#5fan]

You really don't think much of Earl, do you? You can't seriously believe that a single mistake from a utility guy would have resulted in a petulant, knee-jerk demotion, can you? Or maybe you have some vivid recollections of Earl suddenly demoting Kiko Garcia or Tony Muser or Chico Salmon after failing to execute a single defensive play.

It would be more like the straw that broke the camels back as the saying goes than that singular incident. Like the fact he is something like 0-15 and had horrible ab's that game along with the defensive blunder at the worst possible time. However, Manny's walk off might have spared him but I guarantee you Earl would have him on a short leash and no more mental errors like that or poof, he would be a goner for good.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Do I remember right Hardy has some kind of chronic shoulder condition he manages with the occasional cortisone shot as the year goes along? I recall Buck crabbing about a similar play a year or two back when some other 2B made him go across the diamond, saying there was a failure to protect a teammate.

This is pretty interesting if true and would explain why Hardy is waiting for Flaherty to run from the hole to second base on a routine play to first.

[Tx Oriole]

Had Flaherty and his wonderful 202 BA committed such a brain fart in not covering second on an Earl Weaver team during a pennant race he would have found himself on a bus to Rochester tomorrow morning. Just inexcusable he is hands down my most disliked oriole player on the roster.

Just wait OFan. You'll find another one. ?

[Tx Oriole]

I'm not sure that this is what the record would show.

I listened to Wall to Wall Baseball on the radio after the game last night. Dave Johnson talked about this play. He said that Buck talked about the play after the game and Buck said that the set-up to the play was that Flaherty had told Hardy before the play that he (Flaherty) was being positioned far into the hole between 1st and 2nd and so he wasn't sure that he could make it to 2nd on a groundball for the force. The implication here is that Flaherty believed that Hardy should look primarily to go to 1st on a groundball.

Also, according to Dave Johnson, he believed from the way the play played out that Flaherty was slow getting to the bag because the ball was hit more towards the bag at 2nd causing Hardy to range towards 2nd to field it and that he (Flaherty), who already thought Hardy would look primarily to throw to 1st on a grounder, did not want to position himself at an angel that would interfere with Hardy's throw to first.

Lastly, and this one I can attest to myself because I saw it on the replay, Flaherty still got to 2nd before the runner in enough time that he could have received the throw for a successful force play, but Hardy by then had chosen to throw to 1st.

I do believe that Flaherty made a judgment error by not going hard to 2nd on the batted ball, but there was some input by Hardy here was well, and also, the play was far more complicated than it appeared and would have ended better for the O's if Hardy had made different decisions in either of two decision points.

Goodness you lost me on that. Blame Brian, JJ or Ryan I don't care. The O's won.

[Art Wing]

I'm not sure that this is what the record would show.

I listened to Wall to Wall Baseball on the radio after the game last night. Dave Johnson talked about this play. He said that Buck talked about the play after the game and Buck said that the set-up to the play was that Flaherty had told Hardy before the play that he (Flaherty) was being positioned far into the hole between 1st and 2nd and so he wasn't sure that he could make it to 2nd on a groundball for the force. The implication here is that Flaherty believed that Hardy should look primarily to go to 1st on a groundball.

Also, according to Dave Johnson, he believed from the way the play played out that Flaherty was slow getting to the bag because the ball was hit more towards the bag at 2nd causing Hardy to range towards 2nd to field it and that he (Flaherty), who already thought Hardy would look primarily to throw to 1st on a grounder, did not want to position himself at an angel that would interfere with Hardy's throw to first.

Lastly, and this one I can attest to myself because I saw it on the replay, Flaherty still got to 2nd before the runner in enough time that he could have received the throw for a successful force play, but Hardy by then had chosen to throw to 1st.

I do believe that Flaherty made a judgment error by not going hard to 2nd on the batted ball, but there was some input by Hardy here was well, and also, the play was far more complicated than it appeared and would have ended better for the O's if Hardy had made different decisions in either of two decision points.

Thank you for this post. I agree with the bolded.

[Art Wing]

You've taught me a valuable lesson: If you scour enough splits you can show bits of evidence that everyone sucks.

Drungo,

I've been meaning to respond to this post for a while. I'll say first that I greatly admire what you bring to the board and I've learned a lot from you. You're certainly my favorite poster. That being said, it seems you're often critical of players that can only do one thing well, especially when the player is making more than they're worth. Please help me understand why you've seemed to switch that attitude with Matusz. Why shouldn't we look at his career splits as clear evidence that an upgrade is warranted?

Thanks.

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo,

I've been meaning to respond to this post for a while. I'll say first that I greatly admire what you bring to the board and I've learned a lot from you. You're certainly my favorite poster. That being said, it seems you're often critical of players that can only do one thing well, especially when the player is making more than they're worth. Please help me understand why you've seemed to switch that attitude with Matusz. Why shouldn't we look at his career splits as clear evidence that an upgrade is warranted?

Thanks.

That post was in response to Birdland posting Matusz' splits in a partial season against RHBers. I wasn't necessarily defending Matusz so much as I was chastising Birdland for picking out SSS splits, outside of a pitcher's primary responsibility, and using that to "prove" he is terrible. Matusz certainly hasn't done a great job this year, definitely not for his salary, and I wouldn't be opposed to an upgrade. But going forward that .900+ OPS against righties is unlikely to represent Matusz' talent.