Orioles messing with Gausman again what's new.

[wildcard]

I think fans are going to love how the O's handle Gausman after the All-Star break. And they are going to love having him available for the playoffs.

[MrOrange82]

I love how keeping him on a regular throwing schedule against actual ballpayers is "messing with a prospect" but if they'd kept him in Baltimore, played down a man on the roster, and just had him chewin' sunflower seeds and throwing a bullpen session all would be right with the world.

I can see why lots of people wanted to trade Gausman for Samardjiza or Cliff Lee or whatever, since his fragile mental condition can't overcome a 30-minute drive up to Aberdeen and pitching off a slightly unfamiliar mound to *gasp* a few A-ball batters.

Frobby already covered the important points, but I really don't understand why you feel a need to contort yourself to defend the O's handling of Gausman to this point. Most people aren't saying that he's been "ruined" by the O's erratic management of his development thus far, they're just saying (and rightly so, IMO) that it leaves a lot to be desired. And, in light of the team's track record with young pitchers (which we've already discussed at length), it really calls into question their plans, or lack thereof, when it comes to maximizing Gausman's potential for success.

You don't have to scream to high Heaven that the O's FO is inept, but you also don't have to say "no, no, everything's perfectly OK" when it seems pretty obvious that Gausman's handling has been less than ideal.

[Redskins Rick]

How is Bud doing? I think Gonzalez will lose his spot if he throws up another stinker.

You think he will?

I admit Buck has to be concerned, but I think he will get a couple of more starts, of course, Ive been wrong once or twice.

[MrOrange82]

I know you didn't ask me, but I will weigh in. When there is so much hysterical screaming, the more rational gray opinions like yours, Frobby's, mine (in this case) get drowned out and it becomes very difficult not to take a drastically opposite opinion from the screamers just to distance yourself from the madness.

This very process defines our political cycle these days IMHO. Most people are actually fairly middle of the road but the majority of what is on TV and in print are the hysteria builders which just leads to hysteria builders on the exact other side. It isn't very good for actual discourse or learning to get to the best solution, is it?

Those are fair points. Of course, I never take an extreme position on anything. Never, ever. Not even once.

[backwardsk]

How is Bud doing? I think Gonzalez will lose his spot if he throws up another stinker.

I think he's already lost it. Unless Bud has a setback. I wouldn't rush Bud back with the ASB around the corner. But once they come back, Norris, Tillman, Gausman, Chen, and Jimenez will give them the best chance to win, IMO. Gonzalez will make the bullpen even better and you'll have two guys that can spot start.

[LoyalBirdFan]

I know you didn't ask me, but I will weigh in. When there is so much hysterical screaming, the more rational gray opinions like yours, Frobby's, mine (in this case) get drowned out and it becomes very difficult not to take a drastically opposite opinion from the screamers just to distance yourself from the madness.

This very process defines our political cycle these days IMHO. Most people are actually fairly middle of the road but the majority of what is on TV and in print are the hysteria builders which just leads to hysteria builders on the exact other side. It isn't very good for actual discourse or learning to get to the best solution, is it?

You are a smart man... :agree:

As for politics, 'they' want people to jump on one wagon or the other, not think for themselves. That is fairly well documented.

[DrungoHazewood]

Frobby already covered the important points, but I really don't understand why you feel a need to contort yourself to defend the O's handling of Gausman to this point. Most people aren't saying that he's been "ruined" by the O's erratic management of his development thus far, they're just saying (and rightly so, IMO) that it leaves a lot to be desired. And, in light of the team's track record with young pitchers (which we've already discussed at length), it really calls into question their plans, or lack thereof, when it comes to maximizing Gausman's potential for success.

You don't have to scream to high Heaven that the O's FO is inept, but you also don't have to say "no, no, everything's perfectly OK" when it seems pretty obvious that Gausman's handling has been less than ideal.

I had a longer response typed up that disappeared, but I'll just sum it up by saying that the world doesn't even know what an optimal development plan is, or if one exists, so to harshly criticize the Orioles for not following some particular plan is unusual. While structure is usually better than chaos, I'd argue that any particular structure of a prospect's development isn't necessarily obvious or backed by a lot of evidence, and the O's plan with Gausman is far from chaotic.

Baseball is very risk-averse. So they fall back on orthodoxy. Violations of that orthodoxy are seen as blasphemous. But behind the scenes that orthodoxy changes over time, what was once seen as the only right way soon becomes silly and outdated.

I just want people to consider that nobody has all the right answers when it comes to developing successful, healthy pitchers, and be careful when you criticize something that is unfamiliar, or that you don't immediately understand.

[Aristotelian]

I think fans are going to love how the O's handle Gausman after the All-Star break. And they are going to love having him available for the playoffs.

This. Remember when the Nats were contending a couple years ago and Strasburg would have been unavailable for the playoffs? They got trashed every night on ESPN. That's the alternative. O's are taking the opposite approach. It is frustrating in June but good for August-September and good for Gausman's long term development.

[Phantom]

Its not that hard to understand what the O's are doing with Gausman.

Gausman pitched 130 innings last year. That means he should not exceed 160 innings this year if they want him to stay away from injuries.

Gah! Can we kill this myth once and for all?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19497

The Verducci Effect is a case of speculation mixed with a really poor understanding of the scientific method, and that is a dangerous combination. It gives the illusion of knowledge, and that's more dangerous than simply not knowing something. It's tempting to want to grab onto the Verducci explanation, especially when a young pitcher with so much promise suffers such a large setback, because a wrong explanation feels better than no explanation.

[DrungoHazewood]

Gah! Can we kill this myth once and for all?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19497

Thank you. Despite (or maybe as a residual effect of) the advance of rational thought in baseball there are still a lot of cases of pseudo-evidence masquerading as real cause-and-effect.

[wildcard]

Gah! Can we kill this myth once and for all?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19497

So you are taking the side of the geek over Buck, Dave Wallace and Rick Peterson. I think you are on the wrong side of this one. Once more Buck is in control on the situation so he is going to win the argument.

Russell Carleton ? a clinical psychologist who formerly published the blog Baseball Psychologist[62] and developed the blog Statistically Speaking,[63] Carleton is a well-known sabermetrician under the nom de plume "Pizza Cutter" and has contributed to numerous on-line baseball blogs. He claims that sabermetrics saved his dissertation.[64] In December 2009, he inaugurated a "Baseball Therapy" weekly column on BP. On May 3, 2010, he announced that he was departing BP.[65] He returned to BP in July 2012.

Kind of pales in comparison to Buck, Wallace and Peterson. Some psychologist who writes about stats on his computer. I wonder if he ever played baseball. If you know if he has please share.

[Ohfan67]

Gah! Can we kill this myth once and for all?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19497

Thanks for sharing that article. Note, however, that the author basically ignores all of his analyses that provided some support to the Verducci effect (and several of his analyses DID support the hypothesis) and hyped the analyses that did not support the effect. I think this study is a great start, but is far from definitive and certainly not as definitive as the author implies. It will be more interesting when a future study includes more data (the author acknowledges relatively small sample sizes), pitchers are followed for more than one year after the increase in innings, etc.

But a great find and thanks again for sharing. But I wouldn't say that this study is the proverbial "nail-in-the-coffin".

[LookitsPuck]

Thank you. Despite (or maybe as a residual effect of) the advance of rational thought in baseball there are still a lot of cases of pseudo-evidence masquerading as real cause-and-effect.

How is the Gausman case any different than certain pitchers doing better on a set rotation schedule? And some pitchers getting shelled on not enough rest? Or others doing better on an extra day's rest?

Is it unfathomable that the callup of Gausman against the Tigers (on short rest, shortly after recovering from pneumonia and on an inning's limit) was unwise? Couple that with the handling of him for his last start?

[Frobby]

So you are taking the side of the geek over Buck, Dave Wallace and Rick Peterson. I think you are on the wrong side of this one. Once more Buck is in control on the situation so he is going to win the argument.

Russell Carleton ? a clinical psychologist who formerly published the blog Baseball Psychologist[62] and developed the blog Statistically Speaking,[63] Carleton is a well-known sabermetrician under the nom de plume "Pizza Cutter" and has contributed to numerous on-line baseball blogs. He claims that sabermetrics saved his dissertation.[64] In December 2009, he inaugurated a "Baseball Therapy" weekly column on BP. On May 3, 2010, he announced that he was departing BP.[65] He returned to BP in July 2012.

Kind of pales in comparison to Buck, Wallace and Peterson. Some psychologist who writes about stats on his computer. I wonder if he ever played baseball. If you know if he has please share.

I think attacking the author, instead of the analysis in the article, is kind of cheap. I can almost guarantee that Dan Duquette has people studying this issue, and there's a very good chance that someone on his staff has read and considered this article. And I certainly don't buy the idea that the guys who have played and coached the game always know better than the stat geeks. I prefer an organization that does not ignore the stat guys, but doesn't give them the final say, either, and I believe that describes how the Orioles do business.

Bottom line is, we don't know exactly what limit the O's have in mind for Gausman, or how they arrived at it, or how flexible they will be in the heat of a pennant race if the need arises to push Gausman a bit.

I just hope Gausman pitches well enough that he approaches his limit and makes the team think hard about whether to amend it. If he doesn't pitch well, the limit won't be relevant.

[Phantom]

So you are taking the side of the geek over Buck, Dave Wallace and Rick Peterson. I think you are on the wrong side of this one. Once more Buck is in control on the situation so he is going to win the argument.

Russell Carleton ? a clinical psychologist who formerly published the blog Baseball Psychologist[62] and developed the blog Statistically Speaking,[63] Carleton is a well-known sabermetrician under the nom de plume "Pizza Cutter" and has contributed to numerous on-line baseball blogs. He claims that sabermetrics saved his dissertation.[64] In December 2009, he inaugurated a "Baseball Therapy" weekly column on BP. On May 3, 2010, he announced that he was departing BP.[65] He returned to BP in July 2012.

Kind of pales in comparison to Buck, Wallace and Peterson. Some psychologist who writes about stats on his computer. I wonder if he ever played baseball. If you know if he has please share.

Turning this into a "Buck vs some geek psychologist" is a complete farce, and flies in the face of critical thinking. If Buck adheres to the "under 25 over 30" arbitrary innings increase that was postulated (and not even defended) by Verducci, then yes, I will trust almost anyone with solid reasoning skills over him.

Let's not pretend Buck is infallible, or that it is not possible for someone that knows less about baseball than him to be right when disagreeing about specific decisions. If not, then none of us would ever question his choices, correct?

In other words, there is a reason "Call to Authority" is a logical fallacy.