Some observations about Brian Matusz

[Frobby]

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.

I don't think anyone would call me a Flaherty basher, and I made clear in a subsequent post that I generally consider him to be a heady defensive player. I accept carllamy's point. In any event, as evidenced by the fact that I posted it in this thread, my main point was that Brian Matusz did his job, but the box score will reflect otherwise. It was a routine grounder directly to shortstop, that results in an out more than 99% of the time.

[Art Wing]

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.

Thanks for the response. His career OPS against righties is .866 in 1445 PA's. Below the 900+ but it almost doesn't matter when we're talking about numbers that high. You pointed out some big names that he's had some success against but that 0-30 something is a drop in the bucket. If there's an imaginary line that defines a player just barely being worth a roster spot in a pennant race and and a player not being worth it, for me, he's crossed over into negative territory a long time ago. Maybe it's a good thing I have no real say in the matter.

[Frobby]

Mr. Matusz was rather impressive last night. Three straight K's, two vs. RHB.

[weams]

Mr. Matusz was rather impressive last night. Three straight K's, two vs. RHB.

He was fantastic. Great in fact.

[TheDirtyBird]

I would like to keep Brian in the mix for sure, he's been solid as of late.

[Ohfan67]

I think having competitors for bullpen and starter spots has been very good for the team. I'm sure Matusz, Gonzo, Bud, etc., have been looking over their shoulders bit. Buck preaches the value of competition a lot.