Zach Davies

[Sessh]

44 minutes ago, Malike said:

It would have been nice to have Davies, but despite his 17 wins, his WHIP is terrible, his K/9 is pedestrian and his ERA+ doesn't even put him in the top 10 pitchers in the NL, let alone baseball. He would be a clear upgrade but I don't see him approaching Ace territory. His HR/9 is great, and was in the minors as well. If that changes his numbers will not look pretty. Too many baserunners. Still, he'd be a massive upgrade in our rotation and cost effective. I'm over it, though. Good for MIL.

Well, OK, but strikeouts aren't really necessary to be successful. It's at least average. On the WHIP, that's a little unfair. Looking at it by month, it's obvious that his WHIP is inflated due to a rough start:

• April: 1.86
• May: 1.47
• June: 1.29
• July: 1.18
• August: 1.09
• September: 1.18
• Post All-Star: 2.16 (1.16/.243)

He has gotten better as the year has gone on and has certainly pitched like an ace for three months now and certainly since the break. It''s his third year in the NL, so not like they don't know him over there and it will be his third year with above average numbers. His WHIP over the first two seasons in Milwaukee were 1.21 and 1.25 which are both solid as well, so saying he generally allows too many base runners isn't entirely accurate. His ERA+ is 120 which is still very, very good. At any rate, I'm glad he's doing well and definitely good for MIL. I think he's the real deal, but we'll see how he finishes the year and beyond.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Malike said:

It would have been nice to have Davies, but despite his 17 wins, his WHIP is terrible, his K/9 is pedestrian and his ERA+ doesn't even put him in the top 10 pitchers in the NL, let alone baseball. He would be a clear upgrade but I don't see him approaching Ace territory. His HR/9 is great, and was in the minors as well. If that changes his numbers will not look pretty. Too many baserunners. Still, he'd be a massive upgrade in our rotation and cost effective. I'm over it, though. Good for MIL.

Who said he was an ace?   But he is a guy who's going to throw 190ish innings of pretty decent baseball for $550 k.    I'd say we could use, oh, at least three of those.

[Malike]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Who said he was an ace?   But he is a guy who's going to throw 190ish innings of pretty decent baseball for $550 k.    I'd say we could use, oh, at least three of those.

I didn't dispute that. I stated that clearly. People talk about him like we lost a solid #1 as evidenced by a new thread once a week when he gets another win.

[24fps]

2 hours ago, Sessh said:

Well, I can agree with that. AN excess amount of threads on the same topic is certainly annoying and clutters up the entire thread listings. All I'm saying is expecting people to compartmentalize all this other stuff isn't very reasonable to me because all those roads lead to the same place. There's a lot of anger and it's not their fault that it's there. Of course it's going to come up in discussions relating to topics only a stone's throw away from this issue. Of course it's going to keep coming up because the reminders are constant and it's all connected together.

Well, someone already pointed out to you the title of the thread, so if you are tired of hearing the same thing over and over, why click on it? It's a reasonable question.

The reminders are constant?  I've thought about Davies maybe twice since he was traded when not prompted by someone on the OH "venting".  Or is it throwing a tantrum?  Or prosecuting an agenda?  Or trolling?  Or beating a horse so dead its open wounds are already half-rotted and covered in flies?   It's hard to tell sometime.

[Sessh]

13 hours ago, 24fps said:

The reminders are constant?  I've thought about Davies maybe twice since he was traded when not prompted by someone on the OH "venting".  Or is it throwing a tantrum?  Or prosecuting an agenda?  Or trolling?  Or beating a horse so dead its open wounds are already half-rotted and covered in flies?   It's hard to tell sometime.

Well, I don't know, congratulations for not thinking of it at all? I would say this crusade to beat people over the head for talking about it every time it comes up is at least just as dead a horse as well. Bad decisions have lasting effects sometimes far into the future and there are plenty of those to go around. However, it's not really a dead horse if the Orioles continue to suffer for horrible decisions just like this one and especially this one. Just wait until the dark years come. You'll really be sick of it all, then. That is, if these pitchers continue to do well.

I agree fully that we don't need a new thread about it when we already have one to put all the comments in, but we now have posters coming into threads which clearly state in the title what the content is just to let people know they disapprove of the content instead of just skipping it over. I don't view every thread on here. I only look at the ones I'm interested in. One's I'm not interested in, I don't click on. I don't click on them just to come in and tell everyone how stupid I think they are for discussing it. Besides, if it's a problem, the mods could just as easily merge all Zach Davies threads into this one. Of course, they shouldn't have to do that. It would be better if people just kept one thread going instead of making new ones.

[Camden_yardbird]

The problem was not who was traded and for whom they were traded.  The problem was the front office thinking it was a competitive team worthy of giving up prospects for.  That has been a mistake the front office has made two of the last three years.  Couple that with poor free agent signings and the front office is incrementally pushing the Orioles back into a potential decade of obscurity.