Lucas and Scott up

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Wow, interesting take on Scott.   I am not a big fan of wild pitchers, but this is a guy who struck out 12.8 batters per 9 innings in the majors last year.  You don’t give up easily on a guy like that.   He’s probably got the highest ceiling of any reliever in our organization if he can refine his command a bit more.  Personally, I’d prefer to have him working on that in the minors for a few months, but circumstances are compelling an all hands on deck approach.

You said the same thing about Daniel Cabrerra and look how that worked out.

[ArtVanDelay]

15 minutes ago, Philip said:

I was reading last night’s game recap at royals review. It seems that in seven of the royals losses they were tied or leading in the 7th inning, and there was much wringing of hands.

If they want to feel better they can check out our bullpen…

meanwhile, I agree that Scott is a known quantity and not a major league pitcher.

I would prefer to bring up guys with bigger question marks. If they flop, at least we know, and maybe they won’t.

Who is saying Scott isn't a major league pitcher besides you? 

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, atomic said:

You said the same thing about Daniel Cabrerra and look how that worked out.

It’s posts like this that show why so many people have you on ignore.    You joined this board in 2011.    Daniel Cabrera last pitched for the O’s in 2009.    So you have no idea what I said about Daniel Cabrera.    Why make a post like that other than to provoke me?    The fact is, I was not a fan of Daniel Cabrera.    People would get excited whenever he pitched one good game and I’d be one of the posters saying that he’d never do it consistently.   I don’t like wild pitchers, and I never thought Cabrera would overcome his wildness.   And he didn’t, in the 841 innings he pitched for us.   

Scott might not overcome it either, and I’ve made that point many, many times.   But I like his odds much better than Cabrera’s.

[Enjoy Terror]

2007 Daniel Cabrera was such a tease.  I really thought he had it figured out for the first couple games.

[HowAboutThat]

34 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Wow, interesting take on Scott.   I am not a big fan of wild pitchers, but this is a guy who struck out 12.8 batters per 9 innings in the majors last year.  You don’t give up easily on a guy like that.   He’s probably got the highest ceiling of any reliever in our organization if he can refine his command a bit more.  Personally, I’d prefer to have him working on that in the minors for a few months, but circumstances are compelling an all hands on deck approach.

When Scott is on, he is splendid. The problem is that you never know when he’s going to be on, or for how long. Neither does he. That kind of undependability is death for a reliever. 

True improvement is not incremental, but transformative. You don’t go from 1 to 3 to 5 to 7, you go from 1 to 3 to 5 to<lightbulb> to 50, because you have solved the fundamental problem.

I do not know Scott’s fundamental problem, but he has not solved it.  Because he has not solved it, “more time in the minors“ won’t fix anything, either because the root problem hasn’t been identified, or because the solution is unknown or unreachable.

Randy Johnson solved the problem. A lot of really hard throwers don’t. 

[HowAboutThat]

31 minutes ago, ArtVanDelay said:

Who is saying Scott isn't a major league pitcher besides you? 

Does that matter? I don’t think he’ll be successful, And as recently as spring training he was still demonstrating the same problem. I’m not saying that because others say it, I’m saying it because, despite his talent, he’s not consistent enough To be a dependable reliever.

And what’s wrong with that? The history of every endeavor is littered with the regrets of people who had tremendous talent but could not succeed.

I don’t know how many minor league guys who throw upper 90s or harder Finally gave up last year because they couldn’t fix their issues.

But I bet it’s more than one, and I bet that’s true every year.

[LookinUp]

I hate to say this, but Drungo is right about Bleier. It's not just that his ERA and FIP have a large spread, or just that his MiL numbers aren't even as good as his ML FIP, or that his measurable "stuff" is pedestrian at best and his K rate is non-existent. 

It's all of that together plus his age and injury versus a guy who put up good numbers for 100 IP. The poster who mentioned Bergesen hit the nail on the head. Others have pointed out how Bundy is simply worse without the 6-8 MPH on his fastball. Before he could be slightly off. Now he has to be perfect or he'll give up home runs at record pace.

The bottom line is that guys without great stuff don't last very long. People can get hot. They can hit spots and change speeds, but you have to be incredibly "on" to do that. Jimmy Key is one of the few who did it over a long period (thought I bet his secondaries were plus). Bleier simply doesn't profile as being able to do it. Our best hope is for him to come back in about 4 weeks and put up 2 good months of production. LOOGYs have value at the deadline.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

Does that matter? I don’t think he’ll be successful, And as recently as spring training he was still demonstrating the same problem. I’m not saying that because others say it, I’m saying it because, despite his talent, he’s not consistent enough To be a dependable reliever.

And what’s wrong with that? The history of every endeavor is littered with the regrets of people who had tremendous talent but could not succeed.

I don’t know how many minor league guys who throw upper 90s or harder Finally gave up last year because they couldn’t fix their issues.

But I bet it’s more than one, and I bet that’s true every year.

So you're saying that a team with no shot at even remotely contending this year should cut bait on a high risk/high reward/high variability player just because you have a hunch he won't ever figure things out?  And then what, replace him with a lower-ceiling player who's more likely to give us a 4.70 ERA every year?  It's not like they have Billy Wagner itching to come up from AA.  They're sorting out which guys with a skill or a tool or two might be useful in a year or three.

[atomic]

44 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s posts like this that show why so many people have you on ignore.    You joined this board in 2011.    Daniel Cabrera last pitched for the O’s in 2009.    So you have no idea what I said about Daniel Cabrera.    Why make a post like that other than to provoke me?    The fact is, I was not a fan of Daniel Cabrera.    People would get excited whenever he pitched one good game and I’d be one of the posters saying that he’d never do it consistently.   I don’t like wild pitchers, and I never thought Cabrera would overcome his wildness.   And he didn’t, in the 841 innings he pitched for us.   

Scott might not overcome it either, and I’ve made that point many, many times.   But I like his odds much better than Cabrera’s.

It was a joke.  Scott had more ko/9 and less  bb/9 than Cabrera.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

Pretty hard to just lucky for a year and a half to the tune of a sub 2.00 ERA,

Not at all.  It's unremarkable to be lucky or unlucky for multiple seasons.  Remember Danny Jackson on the Royals in the '80s?  He had a three-year run where he went 34-42 with a 121 ERA+.  The Royals gave up on him because he couldn't bear down and win when it counted, and the next year with the Reds he went 23-8.  That kind of thing happens all the time.  Remember when Nolan Ryan won the ERA title in more innings than Bleier has pitched in his MLB career, but was stuck with an 8-16 record?  

How about Matt Albers, former Oriole.  In 2015 and 2017 he had ERAs in the 1.00s, despite FIPs in the 3.00s.  In 2016 and 2018 he was basically unpitchable.  

Lucky rarely evens out over a season.

[Frobby]

27 minutes ago, Philip said:

Does that matter? I don’t think he’ll be successful, And as recently as spring training he was still demonstrating the same problem. I’m not saying that because others say it, I’m saying it because, despite his talent, he’s not consistent enough To be a dependable reliever.

And what’s wrong with that? The history of every endeavor is littered with the regrets of people who had tremendous talent but could not succeed.

I don’t know how many minor league guys who throw upper 90s or harder Finally gave up last year because they couldn’t fix their issues.

But I bet it’s more than one, and I bet that’s true every year.

I honestly don’t disagree much with your position here.    There have been plenty of discussions about pitchers who had good stuff and might be good “if only he can improve his command,” as if that was easy to do.  I’ve always felt that many posters underestimate just how hard that is to do for many pitches.     And I’m sure if I looked I could find 10-20 past posts of mine expressing my doubts that Scott would overcome that problem.    However, not many pitchers throw 50+ innings with a K rate of 12.8, either.    With that going for him, he’s going to get more chances.    

[Frobby]

20 minutes ago, atomic said:

It was a joke.  Scott had more ko/9 and less  bb/9 than Cabrera.

In that case, I apologize for taking it the wrong way.   You are right that there are some similarities in that both were big stuff, poor command pitchers.    And, I do think Scott’s ratios are more promising than Cabrera’s were.   I don’t think Scott’s got better than a 30-40% chance of overcoming his command problems sufficiently to become a good major league reliever, but he’s going to get those chances — and should, given our situation and the alternatives.   

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So you're saying that a team with no shot at even remotely contending this year should cut bait on a high risk/high reward/high variability player just because you have a hunch he won't ever figure things out?  And then what, replace him with a lower-ceiling player who's more likely to give us a 4.70 ERA every year?  It's not like they have Billy Wagner itching to come up from AA.  They're sorting out which guys with a skill or a tool or two might be useful in a year or three.

Ummmno I’m not saying that. I’m saying there are other guys whom I would prefer to see. Just as Mike Wright is a known quantity, Scott is too, and is rather see other guys, at least this early in the season.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

cut bait on a high risk/high reward/high variability player just because you have a hunch he won't ever figure things out?  

What have you seen that indicates that he will ever figure things out? Eventually we just have to accept that a player is the way he is. If you want to play him anyway, and accept the downside, that’s a legitimate option. 

However, if you have several other possibilities that need to be explored, the argument can be made-and I make it-that it’s better to bring up those other guys and see what they can do. Remember, every time a guy earns a long-term place in the pen, It makes the team better and the manager’s job easier.

You are more than welcome to disagree, and that’s ok. My argument remains reasonable.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I honestly don’t disagree much with your position here.    There have been plenty of discussions about pitchers who had good stuff and might be good “if only he can improve his command,” as if that was easy to do.  I’ve always felt that many posters underestimate just how hard that is to do for many pitches.     And I’m sure if I looked I could find 10-20 past posts of mine expressing my doubts that Scott would overcome that problem.    However, not many pitchers throw 50+ innings with a K rate of 12.8, either.    With that going for him, he’s going to get more chances.    

Maybe he doesn't have to throw a switch and figure it out and just stop walking batters.

                                                                                                           
Rk                 Player  BB9 ERA+     IP From   To   Age    G  GS SHO  GF   W   L  SV   BB   SO  ERA  FIP
1          Mitch Williams 7.08  111  691.1 1986 1997 21-32  619   3   0 419  45  58 192  544  660 3.65 4.44
2           Carlos Marmol 6.16  121  577.0 2006 2014 23-31  519  13   0 259  23  35 117  395  744 3.57 3.95
3         Scott Sauerbeck 5.66  118  386.1 1999 2006 27-34  471   0   0  98  20  17   5  243  389 3.82 4.17
4             Matt Mantei 5.58  110  322.2 1995 2005 21-31  315   0   0 196  14  18  93  200  396 4.07 3.92
5              Rod Scurry 5.35  117  460.2 1980 1988 24-32  332   7   0 145  19  32  39  274  431 3.24 3.63
6            Mark Littell 5.14  114  532.0 1973 1982 20-29  316  19   0 181  32  31  56  304  466 3.32 3.33
7             J.C. Romero 5.10  110  661.1 1999 2012 23-36  680  22   0 128  34  28   7  375  526 4.16 4.53
8              Eric Plunk 5.06  112 1151.0 1986 1999 22-35  714  41   0 234  72  58  35  647 1081 3.82 4.21
9                Jim Kern 5.04  116  793.1 1974 1986 25-37  416  14   0 254  53  57  88  444  651 3.32 3.40
10       Scott Williamson 5.00  136  439.1 1999 2007 23-31  344  10   0 137  28  28  55  244  510 3.36 3.56
11               AJ Ramos 4.92  126  366.0 2012 2018 25-31  374   0   0 197  17  18  99  200  426 3.07 3.41
12            Jeff Nelson 4.91  133  784.2 1992 2006 25-39  798   0   0 237  48  45  33  428  829 3.41 3.73
13           Jake Diekman 4.84  111  317.2 2012 2019 25-32  372   0   0  75  14  15   7  171  390 3.77 3.30
14         Mike MacDougal 4.84  112  394.0 2001 2012 24-35  407   3   0 209  18  23  71  212  325 4.00 4.06
15           Sam McDowell 4.74  112 2492.1 1961 1975 18-32  425 346  23  39 141 134  14 1312 2453 3.17 3.06
16          Sammy Stewart 4.72  111  956.2 1978 1987 23-32  359  25   1 181  59  48  45  502  586 3.59 4.17
17             Paul Shuey 4.70  120  530.0 1994 2007 23-36  476   0   0 156  45  28  23  277  556 3.87 3.70
18             Nolan Ryan 4.67  112 5386.0 1966 1993 19-46  807 773  61  13 324 292   3 2795 5714 3.19 2.97
19        Armando Benitez 4.66  140  779.0 1994 2008 21-35  762   0   0 527  40  47 289  403  946 3.13 3.86
20              Doug Sisk 4.59  113  523.1 1982 1991 24-33  332   0   0 161  22  20  33  267  195 3.27 4.04
21         Tippy Martinez 4.59  112  834.0 1974 1988 24-38  546   2   0 320  55  42 115  425  632 3.45 3.57
22          Curt Leskanic 4.57  116  712.2 1993 2004 25-36  603  11   0 244  50  34  55  362  641 4.36 4.36
23        Ricky Bottalico 4.52  110  628.2 1994 2005 24-35  562   0   0 301  33  42 116  316  575 3.99 4.37
24             Rob Dibble 4.49  129  477.0 1988 1995 24-31  385   0   0 204  27  25  89  238  645 2.98 2.43
25        Fernando Rodney 4.45  111  891.1 2002 2019 25-42  903   0   0 579  48  67 325  441  899 3.76 3.75
26              B.J. Ryan 4.43  133  536.2 1999 2009 23-33  560   0   0 249  21  28 117  264  625 3.37 3.33
27          Ted Abernathy 4.43  129  913.2 1960 1972 27-39  610   0   0 400  55  47 149  450  618 2.80 3.45
28            Gregg Olson 4.42  123  672.0 1988 2001 21-34  622   0   0 447  40  39 217  330  588 3.46 3.64

There's a number of well-regarded Orioles on that list.  Anyone else remember Tippy walking almost as many as Tanner Scott has in his career?  Or Sammy Stewart?  Or BJ Ryan?  Or Gregg Olson? Most of those guys didn't have anything close to 12 K/9.