What Do the Orioles See in Shawn Armstrong?

[interloper]

With all the good potential Luke pointed about about Armstrong, it's still definitely a longshot that an older guy like Armstrong (29) can make all those adjustments and carry it through in-game. But while it's not likely he makes huge strides to be a "nugget", if you will, I think it's possible he can be more usable than he appeared last year. 

When we first traded for him, he had a long stretch where he pitched really well. He had a 1.50 ERA in his first 18 innings as an Oriole to bring his ERA from 14.73 after the trade to 3.74. Then he coughed up 4 runs in an inning against Oakland and he floated around the 5 ERA mark the rest of the year. 

He was still way more useful than Mike Wright, and he showed flashes of good stuff with almost 10K/9 after the trade. 

[Moose Milligan]

He flashed a little last year.  I don't think he's nearly as bad as Wright was.  That's about all I got.  

There's some upside, it looks like.  He might turn into the next Wright...the difference is that Wright was afforded chance after chance.  I'm still willing to see what Armstrong can do before writing him off.

[weams]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Sometimes I wonder if you say these things because you believe them, or just to be provocative.

Armstong and Givens both debuted in 2015.   Armstrong has a career 1.3 rWAR and 4.34 ERA.    His ERA was 5.74 last year.  Before he was out of options, he was shuttled back and forth to the minors regularly, and accordingly, he has only amassed 116 innings in the big leagues.   

Givens has been a mainstay of the Orioles’ bullpen since his call-up in 2015, never returning to the minors.    He’s amassed 6.4 rWAR and a 3.40 ERA in 323 big league innings.   His 4.57 ERA last year was the worst of his career, but still more than a run better than Armstrong’s 5.74.     

Oh. I believe them. I am not saying Givens has not had some good times. I believe they are over. 

[Aristotelian]

3 hours ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I dunno, he was decent for a while last year after we acquired him. Numbers look worse because he was hellacious in a Mariners uniform. I doubt he's anything more than a decent middle reliever and maybe not even that.

The one I scratch my head about is Dwight Smith Jr. Like, he's a below replacement level outfielder who is what he is. Plus with the crowded outfield picture, how is he still here? He'd better not take at-bats from Hays, Santander, Mancini and Mountcastle

The sole thing keeping DJS is that he is left handed. Unfortunately that puts him on the strong side of the platoon with any of the above. I highly doubt he lasts the year but I can see why he is here. 

[weams]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Sometimes I wonder if you say these things because you believe them, or just to be provocative.

Armstong and Givens both debuted in 2015.   Armstrong has a career 1.3 rWAR and 4.34 ERA.    His ERA was 5.74 last year.  Before he was out of options, he was shuttled back and forth to the minors regularly, and accordingly, he has only amassed 116 innings in the big leagues.   

Givens has been a mainstay of the Orioles’ bullpen since his call-up in 2015, never returning to the minors.    He’s amassed 6.4 rWAR and a 3.40 ERA in 323 big league innings.   His 4.57 ERA last year was the worst of his career, but still more than a run better than Armstrong’s 5.74.     

Oh. I believe them. I am not saying Givens has not had some good times. I believe they are over. I know who I want pitching the ninth with a lead and left-handers coming to bat. 

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, weams said:

Oh. I believe them. I am not saying Givens has not had some good times. I believe they are over. I know who I want pitching the ninth with a lead and left-handers coming to bat. 

Saying Givens is not as good as he used to be is understandable, saying that Armstrong is probably better is a difficult position to defend.   

[weams]

18 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Saying Givens is not as good as he used to be is understandable, saying that Armstrong is probably better is a difficult position to defend.   

Ok. I accept that. I feel neither of them are very good. 

[interloper]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

Ok. I accept that. I feel neither of them are very good. 

At least you got a few clicks and responses out of it, right?

[MountUrCastle]

11 minutes ago, interloper said:

At least you got a few clicks and responses out of it, right?

Nothing screams rational like arguing about two mediocre relief pitchers on a team that should be finishing bottom-2 in the league next year.

I don't think Givens just suddenly forgot to pitch, so.

[interloper]

5 minutes ago, MountUrCastle said:

Nothing screams rational like arguing about two mediocre relief pitchers on a team that should be finishing bottom-2 in the league next year.

I don't think Givens just suddenly forgot to pitch, so.

Of course not. His stuff is still there, the ball should be less homer-prone, he'll pitch less in the 9th, relievers vary year to year. There's so much there to say that Givens will probably be solid in 2020. There's no real data to suggest otherwise, and yet we're debating whether Armstrong at 29 years old is suddenly better than Givens on the back of one mid-5 ERA season? 

The position is so indefensible to even the lightest of scrutiny that the best it can be called is a lazy/misinformed take, and at worst it's a troll post. Isn't this site supposed to be more than wild, unfounded, throwaway opinions? And then he just ends it with "ok, they are both bad". 

Give me a freaking break. What an embarrassing show. 

[weams]

The expectation is for Givens to be yards better given his career WAR K rate and history. Truth is he no longer is. He can’t face lefties. 

[MountUrCastle]

2 minutes ago, interloper said:

Of course not. His stuff is still there, the ball should be less homer-prone, he'll pitch less in the 9th, relievers vary year to year. There's so much there to say that Givens will probably be solid in 2020. There's no real data to suggest otherwise, and yet we're debating whether Armstrong at 29 years old is suddenly better than Givens on the back of one mid-5 ERA season? 

The position is so indefensible to even the lightest of scrutiny that the best it can be called is a lazy/misinformed take, and at worst it's a troll post. Isn't this site supposed to be more than wild, unfounded, throwaway opinions? And then he just ends it with "ok, they are both bad". 

Give me a freaking break. What an embarrassing show. 

My main point is that arguing about this is a time-wasting ordeal that serves very very minuscule positive benefits to everyone involved.

 

[interloper]

Just now, MountUrCastle said:

My main point is that arguing about this is a time-wasting ordeal that serves very very minuscule positive benefits to everyone involved.

 

I agree. I'm out. It doesn't deserve any further debate.

The OP is fine though, I think. A fair question that I think Luke's thread addresses with some pretty interesting insight. Bottom line, we should take another look at Armstrong because why not. Givens will be fine.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

The expectation is for Givens to be yards better given his career WAR K rate and history. Truth is he no longer is. He can’t face lefties. 

He had a poor year against lefties last season, after two good ones.    We’ll see which version shows up in 2020.     

[MountUrCastle]

Just now, weams said:

The expectation is for Givens to be yards better given his career WAR K rate and history. Truth is he no longer is. He can’t face lefties. 

And apparently this is just arising now, when he had an outlier year after being a 1-2 WAR closer for the past 4 years- and posting similar WAR to Aroldis Chapman outside of 2014/15 and the Cubs world series year. 

Am I saying Givens is closer to Chapman than out of the league? No. Does he still have value, more value than a waiver claim reliever who is consistently less valuable than his comparable? Yes.

Givens has a mediocre year this year, we trade him for complex prospects and maybe one just outside the top 100. I think this is a perfectly acceptable ending.