O's Dynamic Duo

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, wildcard said:

I said Means did not pitch as many innings.  I think they are comparable in the effectiveness of their pitches.

Yes, I was agreeing with you.  

[wildcard]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Yes, I was agreeing with you.  

Hey, I am not used to that.

[now]

8 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I would take Means over Tillman every day of the week.  I never understood how Tillman ever got guys out on a regular basis.

Must have been that he was a "crafty" righty (unlike Gausman).

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I would take Means over Tillman every day of the week.  I never understood how Tillman ever got guys out on a regular basis.

Four-pitch mix, decent command, ability to throw to all four quadrants, excellent stamina during a game.   Loved the guy.   It’s a shame his shoulder gave out on him.  FIP never liked him, but I don’t like FIP, either.   Just win, baby!  

[Pickles]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Four-pitch mix, decent command, ability to throw to all four quadrants, excellent stamina during a game.   Loved the guy.   It’s a shame his shoulder gave out on him.  FIP never liked him, but I don’t like FIP, either.   Just win, baby!  

I liked Tillman.  And he was our most consequential starter over those years.  And SG, as often, is hyperbolic.

But Means is better than Tillman.  Means' CH is better than Tillman's curve ever was because he can gets swings and misses with it IN the strike zone.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I liked Tillman.  And he was our most consequential starter over those years.  And SG, as often, is hyperbolic.

But Means is better than Tillman.  Means' CH is better than Tillman's curve ever was because he can gets swings and misses with it IN the strike zone.

I’m not using hyperbole.  I didn’t think he was good.  I never had confidence in him.  His peripheral stats weren’t good.

But he did eat some innings, won games and had a good stretch of ERAs.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m not using hyperbole.  I didn’t think he was good.  I never had confidence in him.  His peripheral stats weren’t good.

But he did eat some innings, won games and had a good stretch of ERAs.

You said terrible, that's hyperbole.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You said terrible, that's hyperbole.

Actually I said his stuff was terrible.

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m not using hyperbole.  I didn’t think he was good.  I never had confidence in him.  His peripheral stats weren’t good.

But he did eat some innings, won games and had a good stretch of ERAs.

In addition to hyperbolic, now you want to be contradictory.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

In addition to hyperbolic, now you want to be contradictory.

What is being contradictory?

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

What is being contradictory?

If his stuff was terrible, he wouldn't have pitched so many innings, won so many games, or had such a good ERA.

We all understand that he exceeded his FIP.  That doesn't mean his stuff was terrible.  It was pretty average for a SP.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

If his stuff was terrible, he wouldn't have pitching so many innings, won so many games, or had such a good ERA.

We all understand that he exceeded his FIP.  That doesn't mean his stuff was terrible.  It was pretty average for a SP.

Well, he didn’t miss bats, his K rate wasn’t great, his command was mediocre, his Bb rate wasn’t great, his Str% was average-ish and he gave up his share of homers.  He had the benefit of pitching in front of some good defenses.  His BABiP were low.

Never felt he had a good fastball.  

[BohKnowsBmore]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, he didn’t miss bats, his K rate wasn’t great, his command was mediocre, his Bb rate wasn’t great, his Str% was average-ish and he gave up his share of homers.  He had the benefit of pitching in front of some good defenses.  His BABiP were low.

Never felt he had a good fastball.  

You misremember. Early in his career he had a good fastball. 
 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/chris-tillman-finally-arrives/

Whether due to poor conditioning, normal ware and tear, etc. it dropped off as his career went on, but he certainly had “stuff” at one point. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Actually I said his stuff was terrible.

Actually I just said you used the word terrible, I didn't say in what context.

 

If you want to play that game.

[Frobby]

My view: pitchers don’t have good records, pitch a lot of innings and have a good ERA over a five year span based on luck.   Anyone can be lucky for a year or two but if you get good results over a five year span you are doing something right.   

Tillman was 65-33 (.663) with a 3.81 ERA and averaged 5.91 innings per start over a five year period in which the team’s starters were 293-274 (.517) with a 4.36 ERA and averaged 5.72 innings per start.   That didn’t happen by accident IMO.

I wish we had Statcast back then.   It would have been interesting to break down why he was effective.