Jump to content

Jason Grey on Matusz


TakebackOPACY

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I don't understand how you could quantify Hamels as a #2. He's definitely an ace in my eyes, and is proving it with his dominating performance in the playoffs.

Totally what I was going to say. 29IP 5 ER 27K

4-0 1.55ERA 8.3K/9. IN THE PLAYOFFS. If that's not a #1, then it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first started writing poetry, my first teacher offered me a metaphor. He said, think of your talent as a "house", and think of your success as dictated by just how much of that house you are able to occupy. Great writers have enormous "houses" and manage to fill them. Many writers have enormous houses, but fill only a small part of them. They're failures. And many writers have smaller houses, but are able to occupy a large portion of them. These writers are often very successful. At times, moreso than the guys with bigger houses. For comparison, my teacher pointed to a guy who was winning all of the undergrad writing awards. He told me that my house was much bigger than his, but that I was (at the time - I'd only been writing a short time) essentially occupying a single room. The other guy, he said, had erected his house long ago, in high school (he'd been writing a long time) and it was smaller, but he managed to occupy a lot of it (a precocious amount) for a college undergrad.

Pitchers are the same way - what Stotle has laid out is not about results, it's about trying to measure a pitcher's potential dominance and his actual success. Thus, Stotle's equation that a #1 pitcher has:

1. Two pitches that grade out as fringe-plus-plus to plus-plus and another above-average to plus

2. Perhaps one more pitch that is average or better (though depending on the above, this might not be necessary)

3. Plus command

4. Advanced pitchability (knowledge of the "art" and how to gameplan and execute)

5. Durability (both in-game and in-season -- loosely I'll say he has a reasonable chance at 6+ IP each outing, with shorter outings due to effectiveness and not stamina)

6. Usually all of this adds up to high ability to miss bats, but I wouldn't say that missing bats is a requisite (more often, not missing bats is illustrating a shortcoming in 1-4)

...essentially equals a giant house. Hamels doesn't have two plus-plus pitches and one other plus pitch. And neither does Matusz. None of this, however, is indicative of their results. Rather than a mansion, both Matusz and Hamels may turn out to be examples of folks whose "house" is smaller, but who manage to occupy 95% of it. They fully realize their potential.

Thus, in their best years, their success will likely mimic that of guys who Stotle thinks are a #1. (Which, I'm guessing, aren't many.) David Price is a true #1. Hamels may be better every year than Price, as they go forward in their careers, but Price's upside (his house) will always be bigger than Hamels'.

In essence, what I'm saying is that Frobby and Mackus are using an entirely different metric than Stotle - this isn't about looking at performance and determining who the top 1%-10% of performers are. It's about identifying the components of top-tier, Hall-of-Fame dominance and setting it aside. It's not a prediction that this level will be reached, but rather an attempt to create an objective strata for that (very rare) skillset.

Which is exactly why - I imagine - you'll never hear Stotle disparage a guy for "only" being a #2. Especially a guy like Matusz, who seems to know exactly what his strengths are, and pitch to them. A #2 who can occupy the entire "house" of his talent will always be more valuable than a #1 who occupies far less of his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first started writing poetry, my first teacher offered me a metaphor. He said, think of your talent as a "house", and think of your success as dictated by just how much of that house you are able to occupy. Great writers have enormous "houses" and manage to fill them. Many writers have enormous houses, but fill only a small part of them.

...

Which is exactly why - I imagine - you'll never hear Stotle disparage a guy for "only" being a #2. Especially a guy like Matusz, who seems to know exactly what his strengths are, and pitch to them. A #2 who can occupy the entire "house" of his talent will always be more valuable than a #1 who occupies far less of his own.

Great post. I'd rep you if I could.

What's it like to be articulate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence, what I'm saying is that Frobby and Mackus are using an entirely different metric than Stotle - this isn't about looking at performance and determining who the top 1%-10% of performers are. It's about identifying the components of top-tier, Hall-of-Fame dominance and setting it aside. It's not a prediction that this level will be reached, but rather an attempt to create an objective strata for that (very rare) skillset.
I totally agree with Stotle's description of what a #1 starter should be and what skillsets one should have.

What I disagree with is discounting a guy as only a #2 because they don't fit that description, despite having the numbers and performance that obviously indicates that they are a #1.

Cole Hamels is an ace. That's inarguable, IMO. He's a dominant starter that pitches lots of innings, keeps his team in nearly every game, and comes through in the clutch. He doesn't exactly fit the stereotypical skillset of what a true ace should be, but with what skills he does have he definitely fulfills the requirements of what a #1 should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Stotle's description of what a #1 starter should be and what skillsets one should have.

What I disagree with is discounting a guy as only a #2 because they don't fit that description, despite having the numbers and performance that obviously indicates that they are a #1.

Cole Hamels is an ace. That's inarguable, IMO. He's a dominant starter that pitches lots of innings, keeps his team in nearly every game, and comes through in the clutch. He doesn't exactly fit the stereotypical skillset of what a true ace should be, but with what skills he does have he definitely fulfills the requirements of what a #1 should do.

Then you're defining #1 and #2 differently than he is. There's no harm there - but you shouldn't try to make his definition fit yours. Your point ignores my entire argument, which is that Stotle's breakdown asserts that it is necessary to distinguish pitchers based on something more than results. You don't have to do that. As he said, he's not trying to convince anyone.

But the difference is clear - and I don't see why you can't understand where he draws the line. It's as if you think that he's saying that a #2 can't win the Cy Young, or be in the Hall of Fame, or sign an enormous contract. He's not. Plenty of #2s make it into the Hall of Fame. It's not a slight. He just weighs scouting and projection more than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first started writing poetry, my first teacher offered me a metaphor. He said, think of your talent as a "house", and think of your success as dictated by just how much of that house you are able to occupy. Great writers have enormous "houses" and manage to fill them. Many writers have enormous houses, but fill only a small part of them. They're failures. And many writers have smaller houses, but are able to occupy a large portion of them. These writers are often very successful. At times, moreso than the guys with bigger houses. For comparison, my teacher pointed to a guy who was winning all of the undergrad writing awards. He told me that my house was much bigger than his, but that I was (at the time - I'd only been writing a short time) essentially occupying a single room. The other guy, he said, had erected his house long ago, in high school (he'd been writing a long time) and it was smaller, but he managed to occupy a lot of it (a precocious amount) for a college undergrad.

Pitchers are the same way - what Stotle has laid out is not about results, it's about trying to measure a pitcher's potential dominance and his actual success. Thus, Stotle's equation that a #1 pitcher has:

...essentially equals a giant house. Hamels doesn't have two plus-plus pitches and one other plus pitch. And neither does Matusz. None of this, however, is indicative of their results. Rather than a mansion, both Matusz and Hamels may turn out to be examples of folks whose "house" is smaller, but who manage to occupy 95% of it. They fully realize their potential.

Thus, in their best years, their success will likely mimic that of guys who Stotle thinks are a #1. (Which, I'm guessing, aren't many.) David Price is a true #1. Hamels may be better every year than Price, as they go forward in their careers, but Price's upside (his house) will always be bigger than Hamels'.

In essence, what I'm saying is that Frobby and Mackus are using an entirely different metric than Stotle - this isn't about looking at performance and determining who the top 1%-10% of performers are. It's about identifying the components of top-tier, Hall-of-Fame dominance and setting it aside. It's not a prediction that this level will be reached, but rather an attempt to create an objective strata for that (very rare) skillset.

Which is exactly why - I imagine - you'll never hear Stotle disparage a guy for "only" being a #2. Especially a guy like Matusz, who seems to know exactly what his strengths are, and pitch to them. A #2 who can occupy the entire "house" of his talent will always be more valuable than a #1 who occupies far less of his own.

I've got house envy. I'd give you some rep if I could. Great post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Stotle's description of what a #1 starter should be and what skillsets one should have.

What I disagree with is discounting a guy as only a #2 because they don't fit that description, despite having the numbers and performance that obviously indicates that they are a #1.

Cole Hamels is an ace. That's inarguable, IMO. He's a dominant starter that pitches lots of innings, keeps his team in nearly every game, and comes through in the clutch. He doesn't exactly fit the stereotypical skillset of what a true ace should be, but with what skills he does have he definitely fulfills the requirements of what a #1 should do.

I think this is mostly a question of what you mean when you say a guy is a "#1." If you mean that he's good enough to be the best pitcher on most teams, then obviously Hamel qualifies. If your standard is stingier than that, then perhaps he doesn't. Stotle is defining this in a different way, looking at the guy's array of pitches rather than how good his results are.

Now Stotle did say he didn't think Hamels would do as well if he were in the AL. I'll agree with that, only because virtually any NL pitcher wouldn't do as well in the AL. But a 24-year old with a 3.09 ERA in the NL is still a no. 1 in my mind. If he were in the AL maybe his ERA would be closer to 3.50, which would be plenty good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you're defining #1 and #2 differently than he is. There's no harm there - but you shouldn't try to make his definition fit yours. Your point ignores my entire argument, which is that Stotle's breakdown asserts that it is necessary to distinguish pitchers based on something more than results. You don't have to do that. As he said, he's not trying to convince anyone.

But the difference is clear - and I don't see why you can't understand where he draws the line. It's as if you think that he's saying that a #2 can't win the Cy Young, or be in the Hall of Fame, or sign an enormous contract. He's not. Plenty of #2s make it into the Hall of Fame. It's not a slight. He just weighs scouting and projection more than you do.

If that's the case then I'd have to strongly disagree with his definition of a 1. By this measure Cabrera should be a 1 just because his stuff is filthy, and he can eat innings. This is clearly not the case.

His definition of a 1 would be much more representative of potential rather than actuality. In actuality all anyone cares about are results. While although Hamels doesn't have as big a house as others he gets the results of a 1, and is therefore a 1 because results are all that matters. Cabrera, with his mansion is a 5 because he gets the results of a 5 and results are all that matters.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the case then I'd have to strongly disagree with his definition of a 1. By this measure Cabrera should be a 1 just because his stuff is filthy, and he can eat innings. This is clearly not the case.

His definition of a 1 would be much more representative of potential rather than actuality. In actuality all anyone cares about are results. While although Hamels doesn't have as big a house as others he gets the results of a 1, and is therefore a 1 because results are all that matters. Cabrera, with his mansion is a 5 because he gets the results of a 5 and results are all that matters.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this matter.

Well there's a #1 ceiling, which is the most common point of contention, and the status as an actual #1. I was, obviously, talking about ceiling. As for true #1s, they'd have to harness the required command and pitchability that the role requires. Cabrera obviously wouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you're defining #1 and #2 differently than he is. There's no harm there - but you shouldn't try to make his definition fit yours. Your point ignores my entire argument, which is that Stotle's breakdown asserts that it is necessary to distinguish pitchers based on something more than results. You don't have to do that. As he said, he's not trying to convince anyone.

But the difference is clear - and I don't see why you can't understand where he draws the line. It's as if you think that he's saying that a #2 can't win the Cy Young, or be in the Hall of Fame, or sign an enormous contract. He's not. Plenty of #2s make it into the Hall of Fame. It's not a slight. He just weighs scouting and projection more than you do.

He's looking at how a guy gets results. I'm look at what results a guy gets. Thats the basic difference here.

I don't think considering someone a #1 should be based on style, just rather results. Guys who have the skills that Stotle talked about are much more likely to become #1's than guys who don't have those abilities, no argument there, but I just think he's discounting guys who do things differently. When you are looking at prospects and ceilings, I'll take the guy with more of those premium qualities that Stotle is talking about, but once they are at the major league level, all that really matters is their ability to get things done, however they do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Stotle did say he didn't think Hamels would do as well if he were in the AL. I'll agree with that, only because virtually any NL pitcher wouldn't do as well in the AL. But a 24-year old with a 3.09 ERA in the NL is still a no. 1 in my mind. If he were in the AL maybe his ERA would be closer to 3.50, which would be plenty good enough for me.
My way of looking at it would be something like this:

How many teams, with everybody rested, would start someone else in Game 1 of the World Series if they added Hamels to their team. How many teams can legitimately say that they've got someone they are more confidant in. I'd say a handful or so.

If you're on the short-list to answer the question of who do you want starting for you in an important game, then you're an ace, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the case then I'd have to strongly disagree with his definition of a 1. By this measure Cabrera should be a 1 just because his stuff is filthy, and he can eat innings. This is clearly not the case.

His definition of a 1 would be much more representative of potential rather than actuality. In actuality all anyone cares about are results. While although Hamels doesn't have as big a house as others he gets the results of a 1, and is therefore a 1 because results are all that matters. Cabrera, with his mansion is a 5 because he gets the results of a 5 and results are all that matters.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this matter.

Cabrera doesn't have command or pitchability. Not sure how my definition would make him a #1...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cabrera doesn't have command or pitchability. Not sure how my definition would make him a #1...

I think that was my definition being allocated to you. Though Cabrera also didn't have two plus-plus pitches and one good-to-plus pitch.

He had (at one time) two plus-plus pitches and one average-to-below. As well as the command and pitchability issues.

Though his ceiling might arguably have been a #1 (arguably).

Quick question - what about a pitcher like Kevin Brown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • It’s probably fairly inevitable that Grayson will need TJ at some point in his career. Velo increases the risk. However, it’s very common for all pitchers, regardless of velo. The biggest thing Grayson has going for him is that he’s made it to age 24 without a shoulder or elbow injury (at least that I can recall), which already separates him from many others in the high velo club. The best predictor of future injuries is past injuries, and while he did have that lat issue that knocked him out for a fair bit his record is pretty clean in that respect.  Also, it’s more the conventional baseball wisdom than something I’m aware of being supported in stats, but Grayson has a prototypical pitcher’s frame and in theory that could help his durability. It doesn’t seem like he generates his velo from a max effort delivery.
    • It was a fastball.   If you’re bailing out on a fastball from a LHP with a 3/4 delivery like that I think there’s a problem but if you think it’s perfectly fine you’re entitled to your opinion.
    • It’s been a few years, but I seem to recall there was some talk about his playing 2B when Duquette was still here. Might have been some kind of instructional league chatter or something. It certainly cannot hurt. 
    • I'm not sure that I understand all of your post. In particular the mentioning of Elias and Adley in comparison to Belichick and Brady. That is an apples to strawberries comparison at best. Both are fruit and red and round, otherwise unalike. Brady's role as QB and BB's role as head coach and GM is far different and much more directly central to success than Elias GM and certainly Adley as a catcher. However, when speaking about Hal Steinbrenner being an impediment to Elias remaining as GM of the Orioles long term, I don't see it. NY is a totally different market than here. You are NEVER going to be given 4 years for a total tear down and all the future building moves for the sake of the present won't fly in NY. Yes, I am sure than other owners like Steinbrenner envy what the O's have amassed. It's why they changed the draft rules. However, some owners know that the path that Elias used to get the Orioles to where they are is not viable in their markets as they know how alienating it would be to their fanbase. This is to say, that if Elias wants to be here, Rubenstein has the pockets that are plenty deep enough to make that happen. It's probably going to be a similar contract to what the Mets are paying Stearns and the Dodgers are paying Friedman.
    • If he can't locate the breaking stuff and throw the fastball with a good location he gets destroyed. I keep hearing how good his stuff is, but his pitch values are not good on anything but his offspeed pitch. His fastball had negative run value last year and it does again this year. Barrel and hard hit % are both up this year too. I guess he'll live or die by the changeup if it's working or not. Whiff rate and K% are good not great according to statcast.
    • What about Means and Kremer?
    • If the Sacramento A's need a second baseman I am fine with this. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...