Drew Hutchison?

[owknows]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea but that’s an even smaller sample size and there are some noise in the stats that suggest regression.

Getting these guys to be better for one inning is a lot easier than 4-6 innings.

They've had one of the best bullpens in the majors for some time now... so I would certainly allow for some possibility of regression.

But that takes nothing away from the accomplishment, particularly for a team that is stitched together with everyone else's dumpster refuse and a few failed starters, almost every one of which are pitching some incredible baseball.

Is it tougher to pitch 6 innings that 1? Sure.

Does that make the Orioles bullpen performance any less amazing?  Nope.

How much influence has the pitching coach had on that performance? I dunno...  Somewhere between not much, and a whole lot. But I'd be inclined to keep that coach around?

Might he find a way to get more out of the starters as they gain a little experience and more better than average ones filter in?  I'd wager so.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, owknows said:

They've had one of the best bullpens in the majors for some time now... so I would certainly allow for some possibility of regression.

But that takes nothing away from the accomplishment, particularly for a team that is stitched together with everyone else's dumpster refuse and a few failed starters, almost every one of which are pitching some incredible baseball.

Is it tougher to pitch 6 innings that 1? Sure.

Does that make the Orioles bullpen performance any less amazing?  Nope.

How much influence has the pitching coach had on that performance? I dunno...  Somewhere between not much, and a whole lot. But I'd be inclined to keep that coach around?

Might he find a way to get more out of the starters as they gain a little experience and more better than average ones filter in?  I'd wager so.

I think you're overstating things just a tad.  Have they been solid?  Yes.  But sixth in ERA and save percentage, middle of the pack in WHIP and K's.

I wouldn't say one of the best, I think they are in the next tier down from that, which is not a bad place to be mind you.

 

[owknows]

16 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think you're overstating things just a tad.  Have they been solid?  Yes.  But sixth in ERA and save percentage, middle of the pack in WHIP and K's.

I wouldn't say one of the best, I think they are in the next tier down from that, which is not a bad place to be mind you.

 

I'd call sixth best among the best in baseball, without any hesitation at all.

Particularly since they posted those numbers against the singularly toughest schedule in baseball to date.

All the more amazing that it's constructed of misfits, hand-me-downs and dumpster cheese.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

I'd call sixth best among the best in baseball, without any hesitation at all.

Particularly since they posted those numbers against the singularly toughest schedule in baseball to date.

All the more amazing that it's constructed of misfits, hand-me-downs and dumpster cheese.

A lot of BPs are like that.

[owknows]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

A lot of BPs are like that.

A lot of bullpens are constructed of failed starters and the like.

But didn't you just spend the last couple posts lamenting the poor quality of O's starters?

(suggesting that even their failed starters turned bullpen arms would be a few notches below grade)

And haven't you also lamented the quality of the club in general owing to their failure to pay free agents, or trade for actual talent?

They've had all those cards stacked against them, and have still managed some pretty amazing bullpen performance.

Whether you count it among the top... certainly it is miles beyond what was expected.

Don't you find this the least bit noteworthy?

 

 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, owknows said:

A lot of bullpens are constructed of failed starters and the like.

But didn't you just spend the last couple posts lamenting the poor quality of O's starters?

(suggesting that even their failed starters turned bullpen arms would be a few notches below grade)

And haven't you also lamented the quality of the club in general owing to their failure to pay free agents, or trade for actual talent?

They've had all those cards stacked against them, and have still managed some pretty amazing bullpen performance.

Whether you count it among the top... certainly it is miles beyond what was expected.

Don't you find this the least bit noteworthy?

 

 

1) I usually want failed starters to be relievers.  I was all for Lopez as the closer, for example.

2) I have never said I want them to pay up for relievers.  I did say I wanted them to add one good reliever in the offseason but otherwise, I want the BP to be constructed of cheap salaries.  That’s always been something I have said.

I don’t find much of it noteworthy a few months into the season when there is some noise in the stats that speaks to some regression.  

I like how they have used some failed starters in the pen but you are acting like this BP is some weirdly constructed pen done by duct tape.  That’s just not correct.  While some teams have some expensive arms in their pen, a lot of teams have pens made up of failed starters, failed starters prospects, journeymen, etc…I mean, for the most part, a reliever is a castoff type guy.  Many of them go all over the place because they suck one year and are great another.   It’s the rare BP arm that is truly elite or even very good year in and year out.
 

During the Os playoff run, they had many castoffs in the pen.  

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

1) I usually want failed starters to be relievers.  I was all for Lopez as the closer, for example.

2) I have never said I want them to pay up for relievers.  I did say I wanted them to add one good reliever in the offseason but otherwise, I want the BP to be constructed of cheap salaries.  That’s always been something I have said.

I don’t find much of it noteworthy a few months into the season when there is some noise in the stats that speaks to some regression.  

I like how they have used some failed starters in the pen but you are acting like this BP is some weirdly constructed pen done by duct tape.  That’s just not correct.  While some teams have some expensive arms in their pen, a lot of teams have pens made up of failed starters, failed starters prospects, journeymen, etc…I mean, for the most part, a reliever is a castoff type guy.  Many of them go all over the place because they suck one year and are great another.   It’s the rare BP arm that is truly elite or even very good year in and year out.
 

During the Os playoff run, they had many castoffs in the pen.  

 

 

Like that Britton guy and that Givens guy.

[owknows]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

I like how they have used some failed starters in the pen but you are acting like this BP is some weirdly constructed pen done by duct tape.  That’s just not correct.  While some teams have some expensive arms in their pen, a lot of teams have pens made up of failed starters, failed starters prospects, journeymen, etc…I mean, for the most part, a reliever is a castoff type guy.  Many of them go all over the place because they suck one year and are great another.   It’s the rare BP arm that is truly elite or even very good year in and year out.
 

During the Os playoff run, they had many castoffs in the pen.  

 

 

I thought I'd made my point clear.. but I guess I need to be more explicit....

If emerging Oriole starters are awful (relative to the league)...  you would expect that their failed starters which have been shifted to the bullpen would have the same degree of awful performance (relative to the league).

And if most pitchers picked out of the dumpster are awful (relative to the league)... you would expect that most of the pitchers the Orioles pick out of the dumpster and place in the bullpen would have the same degree of awful (relative to the league)

But this has not been so.

This would suggest that perhaps the Oriole front office, and the Oriole Pitching Coach have a greater degree of success in understanding which resource might be best pulled from the dumpster... and which starter might have the most to gain from pitching two innings instead of six. And then instructing them in ways that they might maximize their value in such an environment.

And that their ability to do these things might be a little better than average (relative to the league)

Seems like a pretty easy admission to make... but it requires you to say something moderately complementary to the Orioles...  so I guess I understand. The struggle is real, bro.

 

[Sports Guy]

42 minutes ago, owknows said:

I thought I'd made my point clear.. but I guess I need to be more explicit....

If emerging Oriole starters are awful (relative to the league)...  you would expect that their failed starters which have been shifted to the bullpen would have the same degree of awful performance (relative to the league).

And if most pitchers picked out of the dumpster are awful (relative to the league)... you would expect that most of the pitchers the Orioles pick out of the dumpster and place in the bullpen would have the same degree of awful (relative to the league)

But this has not been so.

This would suggest that perhaps the Oriole front office, and the Oriole Pitching Coach have a greater degree of success in understanding which resource might be best pulled from the dumpster... and which starter might have the most to gain from pitching two innings instead of six. And then instructing them in ways that they might maximize their value in such an environment.

And that their ability to do these things might be a little better than average (relative to the league)

Seems like a pretty easy admission to make... but it requires you to say something moderately complementary to the Orioles...  so I guess I understand. The struggle is real, bro.

 

I don’t see why the Orioles failed starters would be worse relievers.  I’m not really following your example there. 
 

I don’t expect our failed starters to be any worse than others.  Lots of factors go into whether you can be a good reliever.  Over the years, I have wanted a lot of failed Os starters to go to the pen because I felt they could be successful.  Some have, some haven’t.

I don’t really get your point other than trolling me but I’m not saying anything negative here.  You are just making really stupid assumptions based on things you have no idea what you are talking about.  But hey, troll away.  

 

[Sports Guy]

57 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Like that Britton guy and that Givens guy.

And Brach and ODay.  

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And Brach and ODay.  

Andrew Miller was a failed starter.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Andrew Miller was a failed starter.

Yep…Matusz as well.

[wildcard]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I think it’s fair to question what starting pitcher has improved under his tutelage?  
 

Means and Tyler Wells.  We will see about Kremer.   Grayson and DL Hall are being development with him directing the O's minor league pitching.  And of course they are two of the best pitching prospects in baseball.

[owknows]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t see why the Orioles failed starters would be worse relievers. 

 

I didn't say they would be worse relievers than they were starters.

I said that if the Orioles starters are near the bottom of the league in performance on average....  one might expect that when they fail as starters and become relievers, that they might also be near the bottom of the league in performance on average. Because they were of substandard quality to start with.

In other words, a higher quality starter on a stacked team who doesn't quite have the stuff to crack the rotation (and ends up in the pen), ought to be a better reliever than a starter who can't crack the rotation on a team with a terrible starting five.

This really isn't that complicated a concept.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, wildcard said:

Means and Tyler Wells.  We will see about Kremer.   Grayson and DL Hall are being development with him directing the O's minor league pitching.  And of course they are two of the best pitching prospects in baseball.

Means did a lot of good things at one of the training facilities and Holt had nothing to do with it.

Wells is still a SSS and his K rates and lack of missed bats could pose a problem. So, he’s a wait and see and not someone you can say for certainty.  ..not yet.