Don’t you wish that just once....

[TradeAngelos]

17 hours ago, Frobby said:

...we could draft, develop and keep healthy just one guy who became a TOR starter for us?

As we cast about for pitchers to fill out our rotation, I just wish we were better at growing our own.   

There’s still time for either Gausman or Bundy to grow into a TOR role, but I’m not sure that either will.    Praying they prove me wrong, and/or that Harvey lives up to what we thought he was going to be back in 2014.    

So what if we do? We would just try to trade him away like Manny when we didn't feel like paying him. Rinse, repeat. Drafting and developing a player like Machado is just as if not more valuable. And look where we are. We'll probably be looking for that next guy for the next 25 years to keep here for another 5 yrs...and then let walk right out the door. 

[hoosiers]

2 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

I love how you selectively pick your metrics.

Bud was paid 5.3 million and had a 1.9 WAR, which is under value and was a vital clog in that 2014 WS run.

Bud was then paid 8.8m and didnt do as well.

If Bud had stayed healthy and stayed in that 1.9 range, all would be good now.

Did you not enjoy the 2014 WS run?

 

I guess this is the reason I don't engage with you often, RR.  

I was not selective.  I took the entirety of Bud Norris' time in Baltimore and the overall results are largely in line with his career-to-date stats previously with in Houston.  He had been basically league average in Houston (IIRC around ERA+ 99) and was the same in his time in Baltimore.  Norris did not pitch in a straight line to achieve his average results, but skewed them with an awful season around a good one - to the benefit of the better results in 14 and the detriment the next.  The overall results, however, were average and that would have been my expectation.  I did not take any selective metrics.  The overall return for the productivity of Bud Norris in an Orioles uniform was a poor one.  (One can argue, RR, that by taking the 2014 results alone that you are being selective.)  And the trade will look worse each year as Hader produces.  It's what happens when a trade sacrifices the future for the present - only that one would hope the results would be more balanced.

 

[esmd]

Arrieta.  When he was drafted, we all said he had the stuff to be a TOR.  Coming through the minors, we all saw that the had the stuff to be a TOR.  And then he hit the bigs and was up and down, to say the least.  Failing to help him develop and then watching him develop into a Cy Young award winner with the Cubs almost immediately after the trade was an absolute killer.  Imagine how much better we'd have been the last few seasons with Arrieta anchoring our rotation?  Smh....that's a black eye on our organization.

[OFFNY]

On 12/15/2017 at 1:21 PM, Ohfan67 said:

 

Schilling might be a really good comp for Arrieta ........ both needed a change of scenery and a chance to let it go as a starter (unless I'm forgetting an early injury for Schilling?) 

 

o

 

There were three significant differences between Arrieta's Orioles tenure and Schilling's.

 

Arrieta had many more chances with the Orioles than did Schilling (Arrieta had more than 400 IP overall while he was with the Orioles, whereas Schilling only had 69.33.)

Secondly, Arrieta was a starting pitcher for his entire Orioles tenure, whereas Schilling pitched almost exclusively out of the bullpen.

Finally, whereas Arrieta was getting progressively worse each season until the Orioles traded him, Schilling's (brief) tenure with the Orioles was the opposite ........ in Schilling's final season with the Orioles in 1990, he had an ERA of 2.54 and a WHIP of 1.239 after posting an ERA's of 9.82 and 6.23 respectively in 1989 and 1990. Arrieta, on the other hand, had ERA's of 4.66, 5.05, 6.20, and 7.23 from 2010 through 2013 respectively before the Orioles finally unloaded him in the middle of the 2013 season.

 

o

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

p.s. Baseball Ref and Fangraph calculates WAR differently and it seems that Fangraphs WAR values are lower than BR's. So, if you use BR's WAR you have to move the cutoff a little higher. For example, Tillman's 2016 Baseball Ref WAR was 4.1 in 2016. A lot of you probably know that the two sites use different WAR calculations, but I did not until today.

They are different, but they are scaled the same way, meaning that a 4.0 WAR pitcher should be about equally common in each system over time.    The difference is that rWAR relies more on actual runs allowed, fWAR relies on FIP or xFIP to determine how many runs should have been allowed in those constructs.    

[Luke-OH]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

They are different, but they are scaled the same way, meaning that a 4.0 WAR pitcher should be about equally common in each system over time.    The difference is that rWAR relies more on actual runs allowed, fWAR relies on FIP or xFIP to determine how many runs should have been allowed in those constructs.    

I wanted to expound on this a little bit.  The creators of fWAR don't try to argue the FIP is the runs that should be allowed. They understand that some pitchers for different reasons can over or under-preform FIP or xFIP.  They just only wanted to include in a pitcher's WAR the skills they could attribute directly to the pitcher, that are least affected by luck or quality of fielding.

I think in the near future there will be a better metric that takes into account FIP (or something similar) and adds in batted ball profiles and statcast exit velocity data.

SIERA and DRA aim at this, but need more work I think.

[Tx Oriole]

19 minutes ago, esmd said:

Arrieta.  When he was drafted, we all said he had the stuff to be a TOR.  Coming through the minors, we all saw that the had the stuff to be a TOR.  And then he hit the bigs and was up and down, to say the least.  Failing to help him develop and then watching him develop into a Cy Young award winner with the Cubs almost immediately after the trade was an absolute killer.  Imagine how much better we'd have been the last few seasons with Arrieta anchoring our rotation?  Smh....that's a black eye on our organization.

For some reason they can't develop pitcher now. Don't get it. This organization used to develop top flight pitchers. Oh well. 

[tntoriole]

43 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

For some reason they can't develop pitcher now. Don't get it. This organization used to develop top flight pitchers. Oh well. 

Who developed Gausman and Bundy?  Talking about pitching instructors that failed but are no longer in the organization doesn't say anything about what can happen now or in the future.    They have the capability, they just need to pick or acquire the right talent. 

[Frobby]

On 12/15/2017 at 4:33 PM, tntoriole said:

Who developed Gausman and Bundy?  Talking about pitching instructors that failed but are no longer in the organization doesn't say anything about what can happen now or in the future.    They have the capability, they just need to pick or acquire the right talent. 

I’m still waiting for Gausman (4.18 career ERA) and/or Bundy (4.13) to pitch like a no. 1 or 2 starter.   When they do, for a couple years in a row, then I’ll give the Orioles credit for developing one.    But flashes here and there aren’t enough.   

[tntoriole]

39 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m still waiting for Gausman (4.18 career ERA) and/or Bundy (4.13) to pitch like a no. 1 or 2 starter.   When they do, for a couple years in a row, then I’ll give the Orioles credit for developing one.    But flashes here and there aren’t enough.   

This year they will both be horses....I am feeling it.  

[Frobby]

48 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

This year they will both be horses....I am feeling it.  

That certainly would improve our outlook considerably.   

I think Bundy is the more resourceful and mentally tougher of the two.    My main question with him is health and stamina.   Can he make 30+ starts and 180+ innings without losing effectiveness?

As to Gausman, the big issue is consistency.   He’s sort of a predictable pitcher due to his lack of a consistent breaking pitch, so he really has to be dialed in to succeed.

For both of them, they need to limit the damage on the days they don’t have their best stuff.    Bundy allowed 5+ runs seven times last year, and Gausman did it eleven times.   Those numbers need to be cut way down to be considered TOR starters.   

[OriolesMagic83]

The O's should sign Bundy to a long term deal.  Archer never became an ace, but he has the talent.  The Rays signed him to a long term deal and his value is through the roof.  I can see Bundy putting up a couple of ace-like years and then the O's can't afford him.  This organization is blinder than a bat.

[interloper]

17 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

The O's should sign Bundy to a long term deal.  Archer never became an ace, but he has the talent.  The Rays signed him to a long term deal and his value is through the roof.  I can see Bundy putting up a couple of ace-like years and then the O's can't afford him.  This organization is blinder than a bat.

Their lack of foresight when it comes to locking up young players is staggering. That, or the players' agents really just stonewall the O's. I understand you can't sign all of them, but surely we can wrap ONE of Schoop, Bundy, or Gausman?

[Tony-OH]

On 12/15/2017 at 9:48 AM, phillyOs119 said:

Fair enough.

My point is they acquired a cheap average starter at the deadline with 2.5 years of control.  They gave up a 45 FV prospect at the time in Hoes, a 40 FV prospect at the time in Hader (maybe some had a 45 on him), and the pick.  The pick is the most valuable of those assets (at the time).  Compared to other deadline deals, I think it wasn't a good trade or a bad trade, just the normal high cost of doing business at the deadline.

Hader was the jewel of that trade from Houston's perspective. Hader had a much higher ceiling then anyone else in that trade, but was a long way away at the time with an injury risk due to his funky delivery. The Orioles did not want to give up Hader but were told it wasn't getting done without him so they gave in and moved him. In my opinion, as much as I liked Hader, it was worth it if the scouts felt Norris could be a solid starter for them for years to come. The problem is they only got one good year out of him so it looks bad to some.

I was fine with the trade at the time and Norris did help this team in 2014. If the Orioles don't run into the white hot Royals i think they end up winning the World Series that year and people would have no issues with the Norris or Miller trades. 2014 was the year Duquette should have gambled because that team was set up to win it all. 

My issues with Duquette's trades are in the years this team had no chance yet he gave away cheap talent for nothing (Davies mainly).

[Tony-OH]

On 12/17/2017 at 7:59 AM, Frobby said:

I’m still waiting for Gausman (4.18 career ERA) and/or Bundy (4.13) to pitch like a no. 1 or 2 starter.   When they do, for a couple years in a row, then I’ll give the Orioles credit for developing one.    But flashes here and there aren’t enough.   

I think Bundy has the better chance because he's a can command four pitches despite not having the blazing fastball of Gausman. This should be the year where he can hold up physically over 180+ innings. If he can do that then he'll be on the way, though he'll always be limited by the fact that he's a flyball pitcher in Camden Yards.