Gunnar Henderson 2022

[Ohfan67]

15 minutes ago, Gatoriole said:

Why is that infuriating to read? The high fastball wasn't as popular across MLB at that time, not just the Orioles. Pretty bizarre for that to infuriate you.

High fastball was one of Moose’s nicknames in high school. It’s a touchy subject for him. 

[Just Regular]

I wish Manny would have stuck to 3B, and tried to make a run at Schmidt.

https://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=1011586,1011055,11493

Through Age 29, Fangraphs sees Schmidt with about a 50-45 WAR edge.

[Moose Milligan]

33 minutes ago, Gatoriole said:

Why is that infuriating to read? The high fastball wasn't as popular across MLB at that time, not just the Orioles. Pretty bizarre for that to infuriate you.

Because they tried to make him into something he wasn’t.  What they did with him wasn’t working yet they kept at it.

Same with Arrieta. He threw across his body a little bit, so what? They tried for years to correct things that didn’t need correcting. Literally, as soon as he stepped off the plane in Chicago they let him get back to what made him a success in college.  Go to baseball reference and see how quickly he became good in Chicago mid season when he arrived there.

That’s what good coaching does, you don’t try to overhaul what a guy does that makes him successful. Maybe a tweak here or there, some fine tuning. Maybe teach a new pitch. But you don’t **** with the reasons you liked a guy in the first place. 

Who gives a **** if the high fastball wasn’t popular in MLB then?  Why spend a first round pick on a flamethrower who was dominant in college with high fastballs and try to get him to change what he excels at? Would you draft Frank Thomas and try to get him to be a singles hitter? Would you draft Verlander and try to get him to become a change up artist?

Why does it infuriate me? Because imagine how the 2010s could have gone for us if we didn’t screw up the talent we had!  Imagine if we had peak Arrieta and Gausman and Tillman and Chen and Gonzalez. 

That doesn’t infuriate you?   All you took from that article was that the high fastball wasn’t popular at the time?

 

[ShoelesJoe]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Because they tried to make him into something he wasn’t.  What they did with him wasn’t working yet they kept at it.

Same with Arrieta. He threw across his body a little bit, so what? They tried for years to correct things that didn’t need correcting. Literally, as soon as he stepped off the plane in Chicago they let him get back to what made him a success in college.  Go to baseball reference and see how quickly he became good in Chicago mid season when he arrived there.

That’s what good coaching does, you don’t try to overhaul what a guy does that makes him successful. Maybe a tweak here or there, some fine tuning. Maybe teach a new pitch. But you don’t **** with the reasons you liked a guy in the first place. 

Who gives a **** if the high fastball wasn’t popular in MLB then?  Why spend a first round pick on a flamethrower who was dominant in college with high fastballs and try to get him to change what he excels at? Would you draft Frank Thomas and try to get him to be a singles hitter? Would you draft Verlander and try to get him to become a change up artist?

Why does it infuriate me? Because imagine how the 2010s could have gone for us if we didn’t screw up the talent we had!  Imagine if we had peak Arrieta and Gausman and Tillman and Chen and Gonzalez. 

That doesn’t infuriate you?   All you took from that article was that the high fastball wasn’t popular at the time?

 

Brian Matusz raises his hand. 

Back to Henderson -- really wish Hyde would stick him at third and leave him there. I understand the value of guys being adept at multiple positions, but with all of our infield options that shouldn't be a real need going forward. There's also value in stability, where a player (especially one who's still learning) knows where he's going to be playing for the near future and becomes comfortable there. 

[CharmCityHokie]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Because they tried to make him into something he wasn’t.  What they did with him wasn’t working yet they kept at it.

Same with Arrieta. He threw across his body a little bit, so what? They tried for years to correct things that didn’t need correcting. Literally, as soon as he stepped off the plane in Chicago they let him get back to what made him a success in college.  Go to baseball reference and see how quickly he became good in Chicago mid season when he arrived there.

That’s what good coaching does, you don’t try to overhaul what a guy does that makes him successful. Maybe a tweak here or there, some fine tuning. Maybe teach a new pitch. But you don’t **** with the reasons you liked a guy in the first place. 

Who gives a **** if the high fastball wasn’t popular in MLB then?  Why spend a first round pick on a flamethrower who was dominant in college with high fastballs and try to get him to change what he excels at? Would you draft Frank Thomas and try to get him to be a singles hitter? Would you draft Verlander and try to get him to become a change up artist?

Why does it infuriate me? Because imagine how the 2010s could have gone for us if we didn’t screw up the talent we had!  Imagine if we had peak Arrieta and Gausman and Tillman and Chen and Gonzalez. 

That doesn’t infuriate you?   All you took from that article was that the high fastball wasn’t popular at the time?

 

Reminds me of "No cutters for Bundy". You don't draft a guy that high and take away his bread and butter. 

Gunnar Henderson, we like that you're good at everything, but you should try bunting more. 

[Aristotelian]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Because they tried to make him into something he wasn’t.  What they did with him wasn’t working yet they kept at it.

Same with Arrieta. He threw across his body a little bit, so what? They tried for years to correct things that didn’t need correcting. Literally, as soon as he stepped off the plane in Chicago they let him get back to what made him a success in college.  Go to baseball reference and see how quickly he became good in Chicago mid season when he arrived there.

That’s what good coaching does, you don’t try to overhaul what a guy does that makes him successful. Maybe a tweak here or there, some fine tuning. Maybe teach a new pitch. But you don’t **** with the reasons you liked a guy in the first place. 

Who gives a **** if the high fastball wasn’t popular in MLB then?  Why spend a first round pick on a flamethrower who was dominant in college with high fastballs and try to get him to change what he excels at? Would you draft Frank Thomas and try to get him to be a singles hitter? Would you draft Verlander and try to get him to become a change up artist?

Why does it infuriate me? Because imagine how the 2010s could have gone for us if we didn’t screw up the talent we had!  Imagine if we had peak Arrieta and Gausman and Tillman and Chen and Gonzalez. 

That doesn’t infuriate you?   All you took from that article was that the high fastball wasn’t popular at the time?

 

Gausman's career ERA is still 3.94. What he did was not far off for us. He put up 10 WAR for us which most would regard as a success. He had ERA's for ATL and CIN despite being in the NL. He had a great year at Age 30 and is putting together another solid year at 31, but had a very mixed record since leaving us. This stuff isn't easy. 

Admittedly Arrieta was not a good look for the Orioles. Still, we developed enough guys I'm not sure you can say we systematically ruined guys. The three you mentioned along with Britton all had success and were key to our run. 

[Gatoriole]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Because they tried to make him into something he wasn’t.  What they did with him wasn’t working yet they kept at it.

Same with Arrieta. He threw across his body a little bit, so what? They tried for years to correct things that didn’t need correcting. Literally, as soon as he stepped off the plane in Chicago they let him get back to what made him a success in college.  Go to baseball reference and see how quickly he became good in Chicago mid season when he arrived there.

That’s what good coaching does, you don’t try to overhaul what a guy does that makes him successful. Maybe a tweak here or there, some fine tuning. Maybe teach a new pitch. But you don’t **** with the reasons you liked a guy in the first place. 

Who gives a **** if the high fastball wasn’t popular in MLB then?  Why spend a first round pick on a flamethrower who was dominant in college with high fastballs and try to get him to change what he excels at? Would you draft Frank Thomas and try to get him to be a singles hitter? Would you draft Verlander and try to get him to become a change up artist?

Why does it infuriate me? Because imagine how the 2010s could have gone for us if we didn’t screw up the talent we had!  Imagine if we had peak Arrieta and Gausman and Tillman and Chen and Gonzalez. 

That doesn’t infuriate you?   All you took from that article was that the high fastball wasn’t popular at the time?

 

Very odd. You seem to think that the Orioles changed Gausman's use of the fastball to make him throw low fastballs and instead of high fastballs. The article does not state or imply that. Probably because the Orioles did not do that. Keep in mind Gausman pitched at LSU from 2011-12. Obviously, in that era, the high fastball was used even less in college than in the MLB. What's your basis for saying Gausman was dominant in college with high fastballs? That's an odd statement and comes across as though you made it up.

I haven't gone back and looked it up, but my recollection is that Gausman used the high fastball more frequently than was common at that time when he was with the Orioles. I believe they also increased his usage of the pitch during his tenure in the majors (he was struggling and they tried different things with the fastball that did not work). He also was not very successful when he did use the high fastball with the Orioles. It's an odd jump to try to say that the Orioles decreased his use of the pitch. It's more likely that he used it more with the Orioles than he did before he was with the Orioles.

The reason Gausman is more successful now is because the game has changed since he was with the Orioles. It isn't something the Orioles didn't do. The Orioles had him throwing more high fastballs by the end of his tenure (and it wasn't helping).

If you want to be upset about Arrieta, that's cool. It's completely different from Gausman. And doesn't justify making up things about how the Orioles used Gausman.

Just a hint, but if you want to criticize the Orioles regarding Gausman's pitch mix, look at the off speed pitches. 

[Can_of_corn]

34 minutes ago, CharmCityHokie said:

Reminds me of "No cutters for Bundy". You don't draft a guy that high and take away his bread and butter. 

Gunnar Henderson, we like that you're good at everything, but you should try bunting more. 

 

That was only while he was in the minors.

[CharmCityHokie]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

That was only while he was in the minors.

While I believe you are correct, I think just to be petty I will say his first full year in the majors they did restrict him from using it as well: https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bal-orioles-dylan-bundy-still-pitching-without-cutter-in-repertoire-as-he-develops-in-major-league-role-20160604-story.html

I think the quote from Buck about it being a big pitch and he's not going to pitch with it is something I remember from years ago, and I probably cast too wide a net over the whole thing. So that was my mistake on that, mea culpa.

[Moose Milligan]

 

5 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Gausman's career ERA is still 3.94. What he did was not far off for us. He put up 10 WAR for us which most would regard as a success. He had ERA's for ATL and CIN despite being in the NL. He had a great year at Age 30 and is putting together another solid year at 31, but had a very mixed record since leaving us. This stuff isn't easy. 

Admittedly Arrieta was not a good look for the Orioles. Still, we developed enough guys I'm not sure you can say we systematically ruined guys. The three you mentioned along with Britton all had success and were key to our run. 

His ERA since SFG figured out how to use him properly is 3.18.  That's a big difference. 

But to say he had 10 WAR here doesn't really tell the whole story.  He's at 19 for his career, 8.9 of which he's picked up in Covid-19 shortened 2020, and full 2021 and 2022 seasons.  He's essentially doubled his WAR in from Baltimore in less than half the time.  His ERA this year is 3.45 but he leads the league in FIP at 2.41, BB rate and Strikeout/Walk rate.  His strikeout rate has increased since he's left Baltimore by a good bit and his WHIP has improved.  It is safe to say he's made big progress since leaving here, although unlike Arrieta it didn't happen immediately after leaving.

The three I mentioned along with Britton all had success while they were here but none of those guys outside of Britton were drafted and developed by us.  Miguel Gonzalez spent years in the Angels and Red Sox systems and, IIRC, was picked up off the scrap heap from the Mexican Leagues.  Tillman was drafted by the Mariners, although we did develop him some in the minors here in AA and AAA.  Chen, as you know, was pretty much a finished product and came over from Japan.  Britton was tried as a starter and failed and found success in the bullpen.  I would argue we got lucky with him.  

Yes, these things are hard.  But the overriding point is that you don't draft guys like Arrieta and Gausman and start screwing with what brought them to the dance.  Arrieta wasn't a high draft pick but he fell to us due to signability concerns, he was labeled as a 1st or 2nd round talent.  Caleb Joseph speaks to how they botched it with Gausman in that article that was posted.

5 hours ago, Gatoriole said:

Very odd. You seem to think that the Orioles changed Gausman's use of the fastball to make him throw low fastballs and instead of high fastballs. The article does not state or imply that. 

From the article:  

Quote

We just had his usage wrong,” Joseph said on Glenn Clark Radio June 15. “I’m going to be honest with you, we had everything wrong.”

From the start, Gausman featured a fastball with excellent natural movement and a deadly splitter to go with it. Drafted No. 4 overall in 2012 out of LSU, he debuted with the Orioles just one season later. During six seasons in Baltimore, the 6-foot-2, 205-pound right-hander pitched to a 4.22 ERA in 127 starts.

It was solid stretch but one that didn’t quite live up to what many knew he was capable of. The Orioles, Joseph said, were old school in their pitching approach at the time. They liked their pitchers attacking hitters in a traditional way, with fastballs down and away. But Gausman’s heater had natural rise, leading to frequent meatballs.

“You try to go down and away, you end up missing thigh high,” Joseph said.

That does seem to say that they wanted him to attack the lower part of the zone instead of the high part of the zone but again, my reading comprehension isn't the best.  Can you clear up the part in the last two highlighted sections where they wanted him to attack the zone low and away but he'd end up leaving fastballs thigh high, "leading to frequent meatballs?"  

Very odd.  

More:  

Quote

The mismanagement didn’t end there, Joseph said. The catcher always loved Gausman’s splitter, but the Orioles wanted him to save it for two strikes. They also tried to force him to implement a slider more frequently, a pitch he never really figured out.

Four years removed from his last starts for Baltimore, Gausman now throws his splitter 34.7 percent of the time, his second-most frequently used pitch. Meanwhile, he’s almost completely abandoned the slider.

“We wanted to save it for two strikes,” Joseph said of Gausman’s splitter, adding that the club was “really adamant about trying to get him going with a slider, trying to figure out a slider. And goodness, I think he spent probably all of his entire career really stressing on that slider.”

You'll note the use of the word mismanagement.  

The article is partially correct from the slider usage standpoint.  He threw it a fair amount in Baltimore and practically abandoned it while with the Giants but this year it's back up to where he was using it while he was here. 

 

Quote

The reason Gausman is more successful now is because the game has changed since he was with the Orioles. It isn't something the Orioles didn't do. The Orioles had him throwing more high fastballs by the end of his tenure (and it wasn't helping).

So let me get this straight, Gausman is more successful now because the game has changed and Gausman hasn't?  Is that what you're saying here?

The biggest change for Gausman, and it's inarguable, is the usage of the split finger fastball, which again, Joseph said they wanted to limit to two strike counts.  The Fangraphs data bears this out, he's practically doubled the usage of it since he's left here.  

No, the reason he is more successful now is because the Giants let him do what he does best.

Here's a whole article explaining it from last year:

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/giants/kevin-gausman-credits-giants-teammates-rediscovering-splitter

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO -- All season long, Kevin Gausman only has needed two pitches to lead a Giants pitching staff that finished the regular season second in the majors in ERA and third in the NL in batting average against. Gausman threw his four-seam fastball 1,583 times and his splitter 1,061 times. Those two pitches accounted for 88 percent of his total pitches.

They also led to Gausman's first season as an All-Star, a career-low 2.81 ERA and his first 200-strikeout season with 227. 

Quote

Gausman's splitter on the season produced a .133 opposing batting average and just a .224 slugging percentage. It also resulted in a strikeout nearly 46 percent of the time, and its minus-23 run value made it the second-most valuable pitch in the major leagues, with a minimum of 100 plate appearances.

So in 2021 his splitter was the second most valuable pitch in the majors and it resulted in strikeouts nearly 46 percent of the time, am I reading that correctly?

And we limited his usage of it while he was here?  We tried to get him to throw more sliders instead?  And you wonder why I was infuriated by the Caleb Joseph article?  Is it not plain as day as to why it's so infuriating to know that Rick Adair, or Dave Wallace or Buck Showalter or Gary Rajisch whoever the **** was around back then made decisions like this?  "Oh awesome, you have an amazing pitch, let's use it LESS and have you throw a pitch you're not quite grasping MORE.  Meanwhile, we're going to get you to try and throw a fastball in the zone where it probably doesn't make a lot of sense for you."

Quote

Just a hint, but if you want to criticize the Orioles regarding Gausman's pitch mix, look at the off speed pitches. 

 

 

What? 

Dude, he threw a changeup no more than 3.7% of the time he was here.  He's barely gone over 5% with his changeup anywhere he's been except for 13.6% in the 2020 season at San Francisco.  He's thrown it a whopping 1.1% of the time this season.

 

Quote

If you want to be upset about Arrieta, that's cool. It's completely different from Gausman. And doesn't justify making up things about how the Orioles used Gausman.

No, they're linked.  They're absolutely linked.  In both cases it was the Orioles way or the highway.  And I'm not making up things about how the Orioles used Gausman.  All I've done is quote the article that I originally said infuriated me that takes quotes from someone who caught Gausman for years and explains how they mismanaged him, looked at Fangraph data and found another article for you that shows you how the Giants used him properly.  

If you want to continue the points of those articles, feel free to start another thread about the mismanagement of Gausman and Arrieta since this is the Gunnar Henderson thread.  I'm sorry for hijacking this one but I can't help myself, the whole thing is entirely too ridiculous.

Or, as you said, "Very odd."

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Moose Milligan

[Gurgi]

Moose Milligan I think you are pretty much correct in your assessment.   I think we have discovered enough evidence now to look back and question how well the Orioles developed players.   It is infuriating to me.  I am with you.  

We wont know for a couple of years how well Elias's guys are doing in developing players but the returns we have now are very incouraging.   I think you might even have to give a little nod to Elias for Means.  I remember a quote from Buck Showalter in 2019 that the Orioles totally missed on what they thought he would be.  Granted Means got some outside help in the 2018 off season but at least Elias's guys saw his potential and put him on the roster in 2019 and did not mess him up.  

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Gurgi said:

Moose Milligan I think you are pretty much correct in your assessment.   I think we have discovered enough evidence now to look back and question how well the Orioles developed players.   It is infuriating to me.  I am with you.  

We wont know for a couple of years how well Elias's guys are doing in developing players but the returns we have now are very incouraging.   I think you might even have to give a little nod to Elias for Means.  I remember a quote from Buck Showalter in 2019 that the Orioles totally missed on what they thought he would be.  Granted Means got some outside help in the 2018 off season but at least Elias's guys saw his potential and put him on the roster in 2019 and did not mess him up.  

Well I'm also not ignorant enough to understand that no one bats 1.000 when drafting and developing guys.  People miss in evaluations all the time.  Players don't live up to their billing and all the coaching sometimes can't get a guy to where he needs to be.  If everyone was correct all the time, this would fail to be interesting.

But the infuriating part, for me, is to know we had two guys that the Orioles seemed to actively work against their strengths.  As I said, the 2010s could have been very different for us if they let Gausman and Arrieta did best.

Bringing this back to Gunnar, just let the kid play.  

[Frobby]

Wow Moose, that is one long post.   Well done, but like you said, back to Gunnar.   

I’m fine with moving him around the infield this year.  He’s joining a team that’s had certain guys playing certain positions for 125 games before he arrived.   He’s also used to not having a set position, having shuttled between SS and 3B for two years now.   Our SS and 3B have played great defense all year, so there’s no good reason to shake that up in a major way right now.

2023 is a different story.  He should settle in at SS or 3B.   Elias and Hyde can spend the winter figuring out how to structure the team to make that happen.

Meanwhile, Gunnar has been worth 0.5 rWAR, 0.4 fWAR in 14 games.  I don’t think it’s killing him to move around. 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

11 hours ago, CharmCityHokie said:

Machado is on track to have a good chance of going into the Hall of Fame. It would be fantastic if Gunnar could match that, much less better it, but I think it's wayyy too early to compare him to one of the best players of the last 20 years.

Manny has about 75-80% of a solid HOF career.  He passed Harold Baines in career value two years ago. He'd almost have to Chris Davis things to not go to Cooperstown at this point.

[Just Regular]

If Gunnar settles into 3B, Nolan Arenado could gain on Corey Seager as an interesting guy to chase in overall productivity.

Arenado's career WAR accumulation has basically matched Machado, except starting two years older.    He's having a magnificent Age 31 season that probably gives Cardinals fans the best kind of MVP debate ala '83 Ripken v. Murray, and hopefully some day Gunnar v. Adley.

https://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=9777,11493&wg=2

Both Goldschmidt and Arenado have added to their Cooperstown cases nicely this season.    Arenado like Xander has an opt-out for this offseason.

With Toronto's lack of LHP, I hope we see Mullins-Gunnar-Adley up top tonight.