Schmuck gives Matusz a B+ for the year

[ReclaimTheCrown]

Actually, there are two Oriole pitchers higher on the list than Brian.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/mlb/stats/pitching-inherited-runners-scored-leaders/2015/

Right, Tommy has allowed only 10 of 24 (so at least a better %), but Brach has similarly bad, allowing 9 of 17. None of these guys have been tremendous in that realm. SSS, got it, but you evaluate on the sample size you have.

The point is, is anyone really agreeing with Matusz receiving a B+? Buck has also increasingly treated Matusz with kid gloves, appearing very reluctant to use him in big situations.

[ShaneDawg85]

It's hard for me to give him anything better than a straight C. He's not as bad as his detractors claim he is to the point they look for every opportunity to tear him down. But his ERA is incredibly deceptive, particularly when his WHIP has been so high all year long, albeit coming down.

[Frobby]

In fairness, especially with the small sample sizes involved, this is an inconclusive stat. How many outs were there at the time? Were the runners on first, second, or third base. Without this complete information, a blanket stat of "inherited runners scored" doesn't tell us a whole lot. For example, a pitcher who comes in with runners at second and third and no outs and allows 50% of those inherited runners to score -- that would actually be a good result, would it not? On the other hand, if he comes into two games with two outs and a runner on first base in each, allowing 50% of those inherited runners to score would not be so great. Telling us that Matusz has allowed 7 of 13 inherited runners to score doesn't really tell us much without the details involved with those game situations. It is actually a weak argument against a 2.28 ERA in 27 appearances without that additional information.

I agree, but I don't think the details really help Matusz's case. Here are the situations, and the odds that at least one run would score in those situations, according to data from Tom Tango.

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, and allowed 1 to score (.24).

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, and allowed him to score (.42).

- Came in with 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd, didn't allow any runs (.43).

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, didn't allow him to score (.42).

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 3rd, allowed both to score (.29).

- Came in with 0 out, bases loaded and allowed all three to score (.88).

- Came in with 2 outs, runner on 1st and didn't allow him to score (.14).

- Came in with 0 outs, runners on 1st and didn't allow him to score (.44).

In total, one would have expected runs to score in 3.26 of those 8 situations. Matusz allowed runs to score in 4 of the 8, so worse than expected. I'm sure there is a way to figure out exactly how many runners would have been expected to score, but I can't figure that out. There are run expectancy tables that show how many total runs are expected to score in each base/out state, but the ones I've seen don't separate the inherited runners from any subsequent runners who might score. I believe the answer is that the average is between 4 and 5 (as opposed to the 7 Matusz allowed).

[ReclaimTheCrown]

In fairness, especially with the small sample sizes involved, this is an inconclusive stat. How many outs were there at the time? Were the runners on first, second, or third base. Without this complete information, a blanket stat of "inherited runners scored" doesn't tell us a whole lot. For example, a pitcher who comes in with runners at second and third and no outs and allows 50% of those inherited runners to score -- that would actually be a good result, would it not? On the other hand, if he comes into two games with two outs and a runner on first base in each, allowing 50% of those inherited runners to score would not be so great. Telling us that Matusz has allowed 7 of 13 inherited runners to score doesn't really tell us much without the details involved with those game situations. It is actually a weak argument against a 2.28 ERA in 27 appearances without that additional information.

These are fair points - I regret I'm unable to figure out the precise situation into which he has entered, as I think it'd be interesting to see. Maybe others know of a place to find that out.

I would, however, contest your point that this is a weak argument against the fact that he has a decent ERA. I would argue that a 2.28 ERA over 27 innings is, itself, an awfully small sample size. If his inherited runners scored is a SSS, there should at least be an acknowledgement that his ERA is as well. Ultimately, we can hide behind SSS as much as we want, but sometimes, it's what we've got.

My ultimate point is that a B+ for Matusz is grading on an extreme curve, in my opinion. When you add in the extremely high walk rate (which obviously leads to a bad WHIP) and the fact that he seems to be being phased out of some late inning work (apologies I don't have numbers for this, but it is interesting that of his 27 appearances, only 8 have been in games that we won, which I think you can translate to Buck not putting him in there when we want to hold a lead), I think you've got plenty of arguments to say that Brian has not been terribly effective this year.

I don't want to run the guy out of town, but let's be real here.

[Number5]

These are fair points - I regret I'm unable to figure out the precise situation into which he has entered, as I think it'd be interesting to see. Maybe others know of a place to find that out.

I would, however, contest your point that this is a weak argument against the fact that he has a decent ERA. I would argue that a 2.28 ERA over 27 innings is, itself, an awfully small sample size. If his inherited runners scored is a SSS, there should at least be an acknowledgement that his ERA is as well. Ultimately, we can hide behind SSS as much as we want, but sometimes, it's what we've got.

My ultimate point is that a B+ for Matusz is grading on an extreme curve, in my opinion. When you add in the extremely high walk rate (which obviously leads to a bad WHIP) and the fact that he seems to be being phased out of some late inning work (apologies I don't have numbers for this, but it is interesting that of his 27 appearances, only 8 have been in games that we won, which I think you can translate to Buck not putting him in there when we want to hold a lead), I think you've got plenty of arguments to say that Brian has not been terribly effective this year.

I don't want to run the guy out of town, but let's be real here.

Yes, I agree that B+ is an overly generous grade for Matusz. Personally, I'd put him at C (average). My point is that the statistic you cited was inconclusive without more info, and that Matusz doesn't deserve the F grade that so many seem to want to give him.

[Number5]

I agree, but I don't think the details really help Matusz's case. Here are the situations, and the odds that at least one run would score in those situations, according to data from Tom Tango.

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, and allowed 1 to score (.24).

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, and allowed him to score (.42).

- Came in with 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd, didn't allow any runs (.43).

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, didn't allow him to score (.42).

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 3rd, allowed both to score (.29).

- Came in with 0 out, bases loaded and allowed all three to score (.88).

- Came in with 2 outs, runner on 1st and didn't allow him to score (.14).

- Came in with 0 outs, runners on 1st and didn't allow him to score (.44).

In total, one would have expected runs to score in 3.26 of those 8 situations. Matusz allowed runs to score in 4 of the 8, so worse than expected. I'm sure there is a way to figure out exactly how many runners would have been expected to score, but I can't figure that out. There are run expectancy tables that show how many total runs are expected to score in each base/out state, but the ones I've seen don't separate the inherited runners from any subsequent runners who might score. I believe the answer is that the average is between 4 and 5 (as opposed to the 7 Matusz allowed).

Thanks, Frobby, this is more informative than the raw inherited runners scored stat.

[Three Run Homer]

I think that a lot of the anger towards Matusz comes from the fact that he was a very high pick who was supposed to be a sure-thing front-line starter, and he never became one.

I think up until this season, he has been a reliable lefty specialist--at times a dominant one. He had an outstanding strand rate last season and was money against most of the top lefty hitters in the league (except Robinson Cano).

But this year he has been untrustworthy. He's let too many inherited runners score and he's allowed too many lefties to reach base, especially in high-leverage situations.

I'm not saying that we should dump him; he could get back to where he was. But a B+ grade for the year is far too generous.

[ReclaimTheCrown]

Yes, I agree that B+ is an overly generous grade for Matusz. Personally, I'd put him at C (average). My point is that the statistic you cited was inconclusive without more info, and that Matusz doesn't deserve the F grade that so many seem to want to give him.

That's fine, and I certainly never suggested an F. Just saying the same argument you made against the inherited runners scored stat can be made against a good looking ERA after only 27 innings. All good.

Props to Frobby for pulling the game by game stats. That's insightful.

[Crabcakes]

B+????...............(obvious retort).....what a Schmuck

[Phantom]

This is silly. Matusz has allowed more than half of inherited runners to score (7 of 13 have scored.) That's how you "argue with a 2.28 ERA."

I'd argue with a ___ ERA by pointing out that ERA is a garbage stat.

3.91 Fip

4.68 xFip

0.1 fWAR (The B+ of WAR, apparently)

[Number5]

I agree, but I don't think the details really help Matusz's case. Here are the situations, and the odds that at least one run would score in those situations, according to data from Tom Tango.

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, and allowed 1 to score (.24).

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, and allowed him to score (.42).

- Came in with 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd, didn't allow any runs (.43).

- Came in with 1 out, runner on 2nd, didn't allow him to score (.42).

- Came in with 2 outs, runners on 1st and 3rd, allowed both to score (.29).

- Came in with 0 out, bases loaded and allowed all three to score (.88).

- Came in with 2 outs, runner on 1st and didn't allow him to score (.14).

- Came in with 0 outs, runners on 1st and didn't allow him to score (.44).

In total, one would have expected runs to score in 3.26 of those 8 situations. Matusz allowed runs to score in 4 of the 8, so worse than expected. I'm sure there is a way to figure out exactly how many runners would have been expected to score, but I can't figure that out. There are run expectancy tables that show how many total runs are expected to score in each base/out state, but the ones I've seen don't separate the inherited runners from any subsequent runners who might score. I believe the answer is that the average is between 4 and 5 (as opposed to the 7 Matusz allowed).

One thing I would question with this is the .88 runs number for bases loaded and no outs. They are saying that the average number of runs scored in that situation is less than one, and I find that difficult to believe. If the case of one out and a man on second base results in an average of .42 runs, it seems to me that zero outs and bases loaded situations would average more than the .88. No? Even considering double plays, if the double play occurs with zero outs, the runner from third most often scores. To me, allowing 1 run in a bases loaded, no outs situation is a good defensive result. A statistic showing that it is a worse-than-average result just goes counter, IMO, to both common sense and my experience. I would think that one run would be the most common result, and I think that the number of times zero runs are scored would not be a whole lot greater than the number of times two or more runs are scored in that situation. I would have thought something like 1.25 or so would be a reasonable number. .88 just seems low to me. Of course, I have no way to back this up, but I am wondering if the .88 number in this instance is applying only to the runner on third base, rather than all three runners.

[Frobby]

One thing I would question with this is the .88 runs number for bases loaded and no outs. They are saying that the average number of runs scored in that situation is less than one, and I find that difficult to believe. If the case of one out and a man on second base results in an average of .42 runs, it seems to me that zero outs and bases loaded situations would average more than the .88. No? Even considering double plays, if the double play occurs with zero outs, the runner from third most often scores. To me, allowing 1 run in a bases loaded, no outs situation is a good defensive result. A statistic showing that it is a worse-than-average result just goes counter, IMO, to both common sense and my experience. I would think that one run would be the most common result, and I think that the number of times zero runs are scored would not be a whole lot greater than the number of times two or more runs are scored in that situation. I would have thought something like 1.25 or so would be a reasonable number. .88 just seems low to me. Of course, I have no way to back this up, but I am wondering if the .88 number in this instance is applying only to the runner on third base, rather than all three runners.

You misread what I wrote. Those numbers represent the odds that at least one run will score (so, an 88% chance). The average run expectancy with bases loaded, nobody out is 2.39 runs. However, that includes both the three runners on base, and any follow-on runners who might score. I believe if we were just talking about the inherited runners, the right number would be 1.85, which is the total run expectancy (2.39) minus the run expectancy when the bases are empty with nobody out (0.54). So, you are correct that if you come in with the bases loaded and nobody out, allowing one run is a good outcome, and allowing two runs really is just slightly worse than an average outcome.

Caveat: this is based on a table using data from 1993-2010; scoring has dropped since then, so the numbers I provided may be a little high.

[Frobby]

My grades from the 81-game mark: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/148973-Some-thoughts-at-the-halfway-point-(42-39)

Scmuck's grades from the 88-game mark: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/schmuck-blog/bs-sp-orioles-player-grades-0715-20150714-story.html#page=2

Generally speaking, I am a tougher grader than Schmuck. The only players I graded higher than him were:

Chen (A for me, B+ for Schmuck). I don't see how he gave Ubaldo a higher grade (A-) than Chen, who has a better ERA and throws more IP per game.

Gausman (C+ for me, C for Schmuck)

Gonzalez (C+ for me, C for Schmuck). Gonzo had a bad start in the intervening week between my grades and Schmuck's.

Hunter (C+ for me, C- for Schmuck).

Roe (A- for me, B for Schmuck). I was grading based on expectations, which were literally nonexistent for Roe.

Paredes (A for me, A- for Schmuck). See Roe.

Snider (C for me, C- for Schmuck).

I was lower on Britton (A+/A), Matusz (B+/C-), Norris (D-/F), Tillman (D/D-), Joseph (B/C+), Wieters (B/B-), Cabrera (D/F), Davis (B/C+), Flaherty (B/B-), Hardy (B/C-), Machado (A/A-), Pearce (C/D), De Aza (D/D-), Jones (B+/C+) and Young (C-/D-). In most cases, the difference was that I was grading on expectations, and had high expectations for many of these players.

[Number5]

You misread what I wrote. Those numbers represent the odds that at least one run will score (so, an 88% chance). The average run expectancy with bases loaded, nobody out is 2.39 runs. However, that includes both the three runners on base, and any follow-on runners who might score. I believe if we were just talking about the inherited runners, the right number would be 1.85, which is the total run expectancy (2.39) minus the run expectancy when the bases are empty with nobody out (0.54). So, you are correct that if you come in with the bases loaded and nobody out, allowing one run is a good outcome, and allowing two runs really is just slightly worse than an average outcome.

Caveat: this is based on a table using data from 1993-2010; scoring has dropped since then, so the numbers I provided may be a little high.

OK, got it. That makes more sense. Thanks.

[bpilktree]

Right, Tommy has allowed only 10 of 24 (so at least a better %), but Brach has similarly bad, allowing 9 of 17. None of these guys have been tremendous in that realm. SSS, got it, but you evaluate on the sample size you have.

The point is, is anyone really agreeing with Matusz receiving a B+? Buck has also increasingly treated Matusz with kid gloves, appearing very reluctant to use him in big situations.

I think Brach comes in tougher posiions then ay pitcher on the staff. If things fall apart quick an Buck needs a guy fast it sems it is always Brach who is warming up at mach 10 to try and get ready. So then Brach comes in with more trouble and maybe not 100% ready. Brian onthe othernd has basically a spot when he will come in. He knows early on to get ready and that he will face a certain lefty or lefties depending on the sittuation.