Bundy throws 4 perfect innings

[RhythmNathan]

"Bundy wins World Series... (of practice)"

[QBsILLEST1]

After skimming through these 7 pages, I do not see it notated that the Pitch FX data we have from Bundy in the 2012 season out of the pen reflects a non-healthy Bundy if I recall. His velocity was down from what it had been earlier in the season. I would fully expect 93.7MPH(or whatever it was) to possible be his average as a HEALHTY starting pitcher, but not as a reliever. Keep in mind, the majority of us have not see him pitch uninjured unless you happened to see him in the minors.

[Tx Oriole]

The Cubs may be looking to acquire Dylan Bundy.

Why would DD trade him to the Cubs? Are you thinking him for Jeff S. in a trade?

Why would the Cubs want a pitcher not ready for another year? Sorry, not trying

to be a horses ass. Just wonder where you're getting your information.

[Ohfan67]

Back to Bundy...very happy to see him progressing as planned. I agree with Frobby that it is unrealistic to hope that Bundy will throw meaningful innings in Baltimore anytime soon. I don't want to promote Bundy until he is FULLY recovered from the after effects of the surgery. I would worry that a promotion to Bmore before September might tempt Bundy into overthrowing. Young guy, notorious for pushing the envelope with his workouts, back in the bigs, it would be tempting to overthrow.

[Stotle]

They were all highly regarded pitchers, like Kevin Gausman. If you'd like I can go find a bunch of other non-highly regarded pitchers who bounced all around the minors in various poorly-defined roles and development plans until they were released, or spent three weeks with Cleveland in 1978. Is it more relevant that Kurt Birkins had an apparently regimented plan where he mostly spent entire seasons as a starter at each level until promotion to the majors, whereupon he then failed?

Because a handful of pitchers (who have shown to be among the best in the game) succeeded, Gausman should too.

This is rubbish. No one is claiming that it is impossible for a pitcher to succeed without logging 300 MiLB innings. Just that it's not necessarily the best approach. This is shocking straw man territory for you, sir.

And comparing Guasman to Price? Really??????

[Stotle]

We have a difference in philosophy. I think you judge decisions based on the merits and knowledge available at the time. If it doesn't work out it doesn't work out, but you don't go back and say you should have made a different choice. You didn't have that information when you made the decision, and you don't know if a different course would have worked better.

And, complex systems often don't have right choices. There are an infininte number of paths to success and failure. Some are obviously going to be wrong all the time (you don't have Gausman throw 10 pitches a game in the minors, all cutters, then expect him to throw MLB complete games), but the subset of mostly rational, defensible decisions that real life people will make is large.

I'm all for process, but wow is this a poor approach to process that you are advocating. Move people at the same speed as Jim Palmer and Chris Sale because, well, those guys and other all time greats succeeded going that route and, hey, maybe our guy is one of those all time greats too!

Your posts here read as textbook rationalization of an authority's course of action.

[LookitsPuck]

We have a difference in philosophy. I think you judge decisions based on the merits and knowledge available at the time. If it doesn't work out it doesn't work out, but you don't go back and say you should have made a different choice. You didn't have that information when you made the decision, and you don't know if a different course would have worked better.

And, complex systems often don't have right choices. There are an infininte number of paths to success and failure. Some are obviously going to be wrong all the time (you don't have Gausman throw 10 pitches a game in the minors, all cutters, then expect him to throw MLB complete games), but the subset of mostly rational, defensible decisions that real life people will make is large.

Here's a question: was it a good idea to call up a starter on short rest (when you didn't have to) coming off of being sick and a pitch count to face the Detroit Tigers?

[Stotle]

Here's a question: was it a good idea to call up a starter on short rest (when you didn't have to) coming off of being sick and a pitch count to face the Detroit Tigers?

All because you you thought one of your regular MLB starters wasn't equipped to face the Tigers. Let's not forget THAT little nugget...

[CanadianOriole]

Drungo is more than capable of speaking for himself - but I interpreted his point to be that there is a school of thought that Gausman has been mishandled because he's been deployed in ways that deviate from what we might think of as a conventional development path for most contemporary pitchers. Drungo's counter was that a) we don't even know if that conventional path is really the most effective path b) even if that conventional path is somehow proven over time to be the most effective path in general is still doesn't mean it'll be the most effective path in all cases, and c) Gausman's path hasn't even deviated all the far from convention in comparison to the cases of some ptichers where what was done would conventionally be called insane - yet worked out perfectly well - which to some extent reinforces the uncertainty inherent in points a) and b). I didn't read Drungo as saying Palmer came out of A ball after his age 18 season so we ought to have Hunter Harvey start Friday vs Oakland - but that was my interpretation of his remarks and examples.

[Stotle]

Drungo is more than capable of speaking for himself - but I interpreted his point to be that there is a school of thought that Gausman has been mishandled because he's been deployed in ways that deviate from what we might think of as a conventional development path for most contemporary pitchers. Drungo's counter was that a) we don't even know if that conventional path is really the most effective path b) even if that conventional path is somehow proven over time to be the most effective path in general is still doesn't mean it'll be the most effective path in all cases, and c) Gausman's path hasn't even deviated all the far from convention in comparison to the cases of some ptichers where what was done would conventionally be called insane - yet worked out perfectly well - which to some extent reinforces the uncertainty inherent in points a) and b). I didn't read Drungo as saying Palmer came out of A ball after his age 18 season so we ought to have Hunter Harvey start Friday vs Oakland - but that was my interpretation of his remarks and examples.

It isn't that he's been deployed in a manner that deviates from "the norm". It's that he has clearly been deployed in a manner intended to try and leverage incremental benefits at the MLB level, as opposed to actually developing him. There is no sane argument that includes starting Guasman on three days rest as "good" for his development. The Astros couldn't sell that one.

We also have clear examples of organizations that have done better than the average team at developing arms, and in almost no case does that include rushing an arm through the minors. When that does occur, evidence shows that the teams that are good at making these decisions tend to know what they are doing in identifying a profile that is ready to hold its own (Jose Fernandez, Michael Wacha, Chris Sale, etc.).

So far as I can tell, Drungo's point brushes up against some of the ideas you're putting forth, but it falls well short of actually making any coherent case for Baltimore handling Gausman as they have. I mean, we aren't talking about implemented a controversial piggy-back system, or utilizing Gausman at regular intervals in relief at the big league level. We are talking about what appears to be plugging him in haphazardly in situations where the front office doesn't like its MLB options and thinks Gausman might do incrementally better than the guys currently in place.

[LookitsPuck]

All because you you thought one of your regular MLB starters wasn't equipped to face the Tigers. Let's not forget THAT little nugget...

Oh yeah, that is a valuable part of the equation to.

There are certainly questionable decisions made by this organization. Let's not also forget what Buck has been doing in spring training over the last couple (few?) seasons re: hiding the starters from facing AL East competition. It has not worked in the slightest.

[Ruzious]

But did it really hurt Gausman's development to plug him into a situation designed to help the major league team last year? Possibly, but I think it's jumping the gun to reach that conclusion.

[Stotle]

But did it really hurt Gausman's development to plug him into a situation designed to help the major league team last year? Possibly, but I think it's jumping the gun to reach that conclusion.

It obviously hurt his development at a minimum because it slowed his development. I can't see a reasonable argument on the other side of this. There isn't a believable scenario where Gausman's development was better facilitated by throwing out of the bullpen as opposed to starting, throwing more innings, and getting more experience in an environment conducive to development. This is apparent on his face, but blatantly so because the team has him in Triple A right now. If the pen was really the best place to develop him that's where he'd be to start this year.

I 100% in agreement that it is hyperbolic to say it ruined his development.

[LookitsPuck]

It isn't that he's been deployed in a manner that deviates from "the norm". It's that he has clearly been deployed in a manner intended to try and leverage incremental benefits at the MLB level, as opposed to actually developing him. There is no sane argument that includes starting Guasman on three days rest as "good" for his development. The Astros couldn't sell that one.

We also have clear examples of organizations that have done better than the average team at developing arms, and in almost no case does that include rushing an arm through the minors. When that does occur, evidence shows that the teams that are good at making these decisions tend to know what they are doing in identifying a profile that is ready to hold its own (Jose Fernandez, Michael Wacha, Chris Sale, etc.).

So far as I can tell, Drungo's point brushes up against some of the ideas you're putting forth, but it falls well short of actually making any coherent case for Baltimore handling Gausman as they have. I mean, we aren't talking about implemented a controversial piggy-back system, or utilizing Gausman at regular intervals in relief at the big league level. We are talking about what appears to be plugging him in haphazardly in situations where the front office doesn't like its MLB options and thinks Gausman might do incrementally better than the guys currently in place.

This. 100x over.

And let's not forget the Orioles complete lack of ability with developing their high draft pick starters. This is especially concerning compared to other organizations who seemingly churn out pitching prospect after pitching prospect.

Sometimes you just have to blame the organization. Sometimes you blame the prospect. In this case, the organization gets the blame.

Tell me, why have the following starting pitching prospects (as per being starters) all floundered with the O's?

2002: Adam Loewen (hurt, ineffective, now a hitter, 5.38 ERA in 3 years, 1.640 WHIP, 7.4 SO/0, 5.8 BB/9)

2002: Hayden Penn (2005-2006, 9.31 ERA, 4.0 SO/9, 5.3 BB/9 traded to Marlins for Andino)

2004: Brad Bergesen (2009-2011, 4.68 ERA, 4.7 SO/9, 2.6 BB/9...now out of MLB)

2006: Zach Britton (hurt, 4.77 ERA in 3 years, 1.516 WHIP, 5.9 SO/9, 3.9 BB/9, relegated to the bullpen)

2007: Jake Arrieta (2010-2012 as an O: 5.33 ERA, 1.451 WHIP, 6.8 SO/9, 3.8 BB/9...now doing well with the Cubs in 15 starts)

2008: Brian Matusz (2009-2011 as a SP: 5.53 ERA, 1.507 WHIP, 7.3 SO/9, 3.4 BB/9 relegated to LOOGY duties)

2009: Matt Hobgood (hurt, cheap and bewildering pick, ERA approaching 5.00 in the minors in 5 seasons in A-, A, A+ ball)

Dylan Bundy is rehabbing off of Tommy John Surgery. Kevin Gausman's stints in the majors have equated to a 6.10 ERA.

We could talk about Chris Tillman, but we didn't draft him. Yes, we've developed him and he seems to be the only star right now.

There are others as well.

If you look at guys like Jim Johnson, he succeeded in the bullpen.

The last time the Orioles drafted and developed a promising starting pitcher was Erik Bedard. And that was back in the 1999 draft. We've been dealing with at least a decade of incompetence or just very, very, VERY poor results. And I find it very hard to say that every single starting pitching prospect has either been a bust or only successful in the bullpen.

[CA-ORIOLE]

We are talking about what appears to be plugging him in haphazardly in situations where the front office doesn't like its MLB options and thinks Gausman might do incrementally better than the guys currently in place.

i disagree with "haphazardly", though there clearly is some balancing with utilizing him to help benefit the team in a limited scope. As I assume he was on some strict innings count last year, I'm not sure the utilizing him out of the BP was necessarilly some poor decision either. He did well and helped the team and I don't see how facing ML hitters is necessarily a drawback severely impacting his overall development that some are making it out to be.

As for the point about being brought up sick tired, and/or unprepared and abused on only 3 days rest in that last start, I find it fairly ridiculous when considering the pitch counts and what was to be expected of him. He neither looked sick and/or tired, or flustered in the slightest. He looked ok for awhile but failed to execute some pitches against a very good team.

Unless Gausman is some fragile flower, I just don't see any reason to believe that he has been grossly mishandled. The guy pitched 3 years in college in a top program. That said, I have a lot of other questions and concerns about how they are developing him, but these short duration stints in the majors is hardly concerning to me and i have quite a bit of doubt the situation with Gausman would be even marginally better if they had been omitted.