Jump to content

Connolly looks at why Elias signed Lyles


Sports Guy

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, LookinUp said:

I'm not going back right now to see how we acquired Kevin Brown, Scott Erickson, Jimmy Key and David Wells, and I know the financials are different now than they used to be, but we do have a history of getting big time pitchers into Baltimore.

This is true, but the Orioles did not get these pitchers anywhere near their prime, only when they were declining  in their pitching abilities,  for the most part.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Key was mostly injured in '95, went 12-11, 4.68 for the Yanks in '96 then signed a two-year deal with the O’s.

‘96 was a red-hot offensive environment.  Key’s 4.68 ERA was good for a 107 ERA+.   Not saying he was at the top of his game, but I liked that acquisition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 7:06 PM, oriole said:

150 innings would have led the club last year. If he can match his 180 innings from last year then he far out performs any other pitcher. He is being paid a premium for this reason only. 
 

The conspiracy theorist in me still thinks it was to save face going into the lockout but there’s no way to ever prove that.

Maybe they're just trying to set the record for highest percentage of payroll given to a guy we knew would have a 5.00 ERA before he even signed.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Flash- bd said:

It must be thrilling to be Jordan Lyles and have the GM who signed you talk about your abilities in such glowing terms 😂

The 7m will help soften the blow, though. 

And if Spring Training numbers mean anything, Lyles is probably our second best starter.  Hopefully Wells looks good today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/1/2022 at 10:59 AM, Sports Guy said:

What you wonder is, if those innings are crappy, will they keep him in games anyway?

Like, do you just look past mediocre and bad performances to just get the innings to save the young arms?  
 

He will obviously have some good starts and some just ok starts.  Those you keep him in as long as possible but what about the bad starts.  
 

It will be interesting to see if they just keep him out there often to protect arms.  

It's a valid point... my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek in a sort of gallows humor over how long the rebuild is taking... I was imagining a mound visit after he gets pounded for 4 or 5 runs.  Pitching coach walks out and says "how's your arm feel."  He responds... "Great, I can give you 3 or 5 more innings just like this.  

But, his role as an innings eater is probably legitimate, at least for a while, in protecting young arms and giving the bullpen a breather.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...