I think we need to be worried about Chen.

[Sports Guy]

Paul's point about pissing off the clubhouse is right.

Plus, try to justify to the fans that you are sending your best pitcher of 2005 to the pen.

And then, tell Mazzone, who really likes Chen and knows alot more about pitching than us(or anyone else) that Chen needs to be in the BP.

I think the statement should have been that we should deal Chen and if he is here, i predict he will be out of the rotation by July. To me, that makes sense and is/was certainly possible.

[Frobby]

Even if you adjust his HR/OFFB rate to league average, his DIPS ERA indicated that his ERA was likely to go way up this year. So as much as you hate/refuse to admit it, DIPS has been right thus far.

And Cabrera? Benson? I'm not really against DIPS, but I am against selective use of 4 starts by ONE pitcher to try to prove a point. (Not really aiming this at you, 1970.)

Chen's DIPS ERA was 5.03 last year, which in the AL is bad but not awful. Should we have expected the 7.84 we've gotten so far?

Kris Benson's DIPS ERA was 4.68, and that was in the NL so we would have expected it to be equivalent to Chen's if adjusted to the AL. Yet right now he is at 3.70. Does that "prove" DIPS is wrong? No, of course not. Not any more than Chen's ERA "proves" DIPS was right.

Daniel Cabrera's DIPS ERA was 4.13. Right now he sits at 6.87. Does that "prove" DIPS was wrong?

I think pretty much everyone, including me, expected Chen to come back to earth a bit this year. I didn't expect him to pitch so poorly that people would be talking about pulling him from the rotation after 4 starts. And I still don't expect him to pitch that poorly as the year goes along.

[DrungoHazewood]

Can I ask why?

There's this crazy idea that if someone does well for you one year, it's unthinkable to want them replaced because it's a slap in the face to them.

If you're convinced that a pitcher is not going to perform well, regardless of what he had done the year before, why do you have to put him in the rotation? To make yourself look good to the rest of the team?

It's like Al Leiter. He had a 3.21 ERA in 2004, the 10th best in the league, but a 4.84 DIPS. Being that he was close to 40, yea, I would not have even put him into my rotation for next year, and this is the guy who had the 10th best ERA in baseball. Sure enough, the Marlins gave him a pretty big contract even, and he had a 6.13 ERA.

My contention was that Bruce Chen wasn't that much different from his previous not very good self despite the very good ERA. I felt that he was much closer to a 5 ERA pitcher, and I could care less what a guy did last year when projecting my team from next year. If I think a guy is going to have an ERA near 5, I don't put him in my rotation. If you thought he'd be 4.5, that's around average and fine, but I think he's going to be much worse, and so far I've been right, but I certainly agree that it's too early too call.

I would have made Chen the long man in the pen, where he'd have been fine. If he comes away with a 4.90ish ERA this year, why wouldn't it have been wrong to save us from what was impending and do better?

Sorry, but this is absurd. It's not like Chen was a guy who averaged 3 K/9 and was clearly on a Jeff Ballard-type route to obscurity. He wasn't a one-year wonder with a crazy delivery that faded down the stretch, he pitched reasonably well throughout 2005. He has a career major league ERA of 4.27 (2% better than average) over 700 innings.

Who would have replaced him? Hayden Penn, a 21-year-old who was unambiguously not ready last year? John Halama? Eric DuBose? Some other, similar replacement-level pitcher?

It would have been basically unprecedented in major league history to take a guy with a 2005 performance like Chen, a career record like Chen, who is healthy and cheap without a plausible replacment, and demote him to the pen for no other reason than "some of his peripherials weren't as good as his ERA." I'd guess that's never happened in the 130 year history of major league baseball.

Maybe some team once had a truck full of five-star starting prospects all ready to dominate the majors, and they demoted an above-average starter to be a mopup man in the pen. I never actually heard of such a thing, but I guess it's possible. But in any case that clearly wasn't the Orioles' situation.

If Chen had been a free agent at the end of 2005 I guarantee he would have gotten a three or four year contract at $8M per to be someone's #2 or #3 starter.

[DrungoHazewood]

What we have here is expectation bias. When you expect a certain performance out of a player and they play that way over a brief period you tend to believe that your expectations turned into reality. If Johann Santana had a four-start run like Chen the response would be "if he's not hurt then he'll be back on track next start," or "anybody can have a couple weeks with poor pitch location or mechanics."

It's like Ramon Hernandez. Everyone is currently thinking "whew, that's good, thought he'd be a fine signing, but this is just proving it." When in reality 50 at bats doesn't really prove a darn thing. Or Jeff Conine. I kept saying all offseason, over and over that he was a prime candidate for collapse. Him going 7-for-46 not only doesn't prove I'm right, it doesn't prove anything besides he's in a slump.

[AlBumbry]

What we have here is expectation bias. When you expect a certain performance out of a player and they play that way over a brief period you tend to believe that your expectations turned into reality. If Johann Santana had a four-start run like Chen the response would be "if he's not hurt then he'll be back on track next start," or "anybody can have a couple weeks with poor pitch location or mechanics."

It's like Ramon Hernandez. Everyone is currently thinking "whew, that's good, thought he'd be a fine signing, but this is just proving it." When in reality 50 at bats doesn't really prove a darn thing. Or Jeff Conine. I kept saying all offseason, over and over that he was a prime candidate for collapse. Him going 7-for-46 not only doesn't prove I'm right, it doesn't prove anything besides he's in a slump.

Drungo -

I believe you are using improper message board technique. When Conine swung and missed at his first pitch, you were supposed to make your first post declaring how right you were. When he completed the first AB by making an out, your second post should have followed indicating how much smarter than you are than Flanagan/Duquette for having seen this and how could they not have. Finally, with the extended slump, you should be declaring yourself ready for the position of commisioner. Humility or waiting for true results has no place on boards. Please remember this in the future. :002_sbiggrin:

[erb8472]

Here is some data I found for what I believe to be the #5 starters for each of the AL teams except the Yankees(who have yet to need a #5 starter).

Boston

Wells 4 IP 15.75 ERA

Dinardo 8 IP 7.42 ERA

Anaheim

Santana 18 IP 3.93 ERA

Chicago

Vasquez 21 IP 3.86 ERA

Oakland

Blanton 18 1/3 IP 6.87 ERA

Toronto

Lilly 14.1 IP 3.77 ERA

Tampa Bay

Waechter 14.1 IP 6.28 ERA

Cleveland

Johnson 25 2/3 IP 2.81 ERA

Seattle

Hernandez 21 1/3 IP 4.57 ERA

Texas

Koronka 24 IP 3.75 ERA

Detroit

Verlander 23 2/3 IP 4.18 ERA

Kansas City

Affeldt 18 2/3 IP 6.27 ERA

Minnesota

Baker 16.1 IP 3.31 ERA

Baltimore

Chen 20 2/3 IP 7.84 ERA

[mweb]

Can I ask why?

There's this crazy idea that if someone does well for you one year, it's unthinkable to want them replaced because it's a slap in the face to them.

If you're convinced that a pitcher is not going to perform well, regardless of what he had done the year before, why do you have to put him in the rotation? To make yourself look good to the rest of the team?

It's like Al Leiter. He had a 3.21 ERA in 2004, the 10th best in the league, but a 4.84 DIPS. Being that he was close to 40, yea, I would not have even put him into my rotation for next year, and this is the guy who had the 10th best ERA in baseball. Sure enough, the Marlins gave him a pretty big contract even, and he had a 6.13 ERA.

My contention was that Bruce Chen wasn't that much different from his previous not very good self despite the very good ERA. I felt that he was much closer to a 5 ERA pitcher, and I could care less what a guy did last year when projecting my team from next year. If I think a guy is going to have an ERA near 5, I don't put him in my rotation. If you thought he'd be 4.5, that's around average and fine, but I think he's going to be much worse, and so far I've been right, but I certainly agree that it's too early too call.

I would have made Chen the long man in the pen, where he'd have been fine. If he comes away with a 4.90ish ERA this year, why wouldn't it have been wrong to save us from what was impending and do better?

You can run a team on OOTP like that, but when dealing with real people, it doesn't make sense.

If you wanted to trade him, fine, but if he's on the team going into the season, he has to be a starter. Like others have said, you don't treat players like that, you don't upset the clubhouse like that, and you don't have a guy making that much money be your long man.

Plus, you act like a 4.9 ERA is awful, granted it's not good, but it's fine for a 5th starter and it might not even be the worst ERA on the team this year. DC and Rodrigo aren't off to good starts either, and I'm pretty sure you felt DC would have a good year, yet I don't see you reaching a conclusion on his season yet.

We didn't have anyone to replace Chen anyway.

[bryanman8]

yet I don't see you reaching a conclusion on his season yet.

We didn't have anyone to replace Chen anyway.

I'm not reaching any conclusion. Chen's just pitched like the type of pitcher he is peripherally, and clearly that hasn't been a good combo for his ERA.

All I'm saying is that if Chen does finish with an ERA near 5 and it takes us 15 starts or so to realize that it's finally time to replace him, I think that would have justified not starting him in the rotation.

It would have hurt his feelings and the team wouldn't have liked the GM though, so it was not a good idea to sign someone with a 4.25 ERA or something (consider how many more wins a year that is than 4.95) if it meant sending your best starter last year to the bullpen.

Whatever. I don't agree, but I guess the feeling is that respect means more than performance sometimes.

I'm reserving judgement, and if someone can find the average ERAs for 5th starters and it's near 5, than maybe I was wrong and Chen's fine. The problem is though, Rodrigo Lopez is essentially a 5th starter too and Kris Benson is not much better than him. I still think Cabrera and Bedard will be great, Chen will be real bad, and I'm reserving judgement. Obviously though, the thing with Chen is that even if he pitches similar to last year, I think his ERA will be near 5. Cabrera can't pitch similar to last year. He needs to cut down his walks drastically. I can not invade Daniel Cabrera's brain. So those of you who keep telling me I've been 'wrong' about him so far, please stop. If he pulls a Rick Ankiel, there's nothing I can do. Some players can harness their control, some can't. So far, Cabrera hasn't. No one thought his ERA would be good if he couldn't get his control in check, and there was no way to tell if that would happen. If he does, Daniel Cabrera will be an incredible pitcher.

Btw, my idea was to sign someone. With what we had, I would have had Chen in the rotation.

[mweb]

League average was 4.39 last year. So I would think an average 5th starter is in the 5 neighborhood.

If we had signed another starter which I was in favor of, we should have traded Rodrigo for a young bat.

And if you aren't reaching any conclusions, than you shouldn't be proclaiming yourself right just yet. Yeah, his other numbers showed he wasn't as good of a pitcher as his ERA showed, but you still have to wait until his results drop.

You also shouldn't be taking credit for Chen and at the same time saying you can't control DC's control, thus you can't be held accountable for your predictions on him. BTW, I also predicted DC to have a good year, so I've been wrong so far on that one as well.

[DrungoHazewood]

All I'm saying is that if Chen does finish with an ERA near 5 and it takes us 15 starts or so to realize that it's finally time to replace him, I think that would have justified not starting him in the rotation.

What? If he has an ERA in the high fours he's not going to be replaced.

Let's look at the rest of the AL East last year and figure where Chen would have been had he pitched the same number of innings but had a 4.90 ERA:

Yankees: Third starter. The Yanks got 36 starts from pitchers with 5.50+ ERAs.

Red Sox: All of their regular starters had between a 4.15 and a 4.95 ERA, so he'd have been somewhere in the back of their rotation.

Blue Jays: Fourth starter. Ted Lilly and David Bush combined for 49 starts and a 5.00 ERA.

Devil Rays: Number two. The Rays had four starters who threw 100+ innings and had a 5.60+ ERA.

In the entire division there were only five starters with 200 innings and and ERA below 5.00. So even if you consider Chen's "real" ERA to be in the high-4.00s he's a good innings eater that any team in the division would have loved to have.

You simply don't discard a starter who can throw 200 innings at a league-average run rate because you don't think his peripherials add up to his 2005 ERA.

[boogidownoriole]

What? If he has an ERA in the high fours he's not going to be replaced.

Let's look at the rest of the AL East last year and figure where Chen would have been had he pitched the same number of innings but had a 4.90 ERA:

Yankees: Third starter. The Yanks got 36 starts from pitchers with 5.50+ ERAs.

Red Sox: All of their regular starters had between a 4.15 and a 4.95 ERA, so he'd have been somewhere in the back of their rotation.

Blue Jays: Fourth starter. Ted Lilly and David Bush combined for 49 starts and a 5.00 ERA.

Devil Rays: Number two. The Rays had four starters who threw 100+ innings and had a 5.60+ ERA.

In the entire division there were only five starters with 200 innings and and ERA below 5.00. So even if you consider Chen's "real" ERA to be in the high-4.00s he's a good innings eater that any team in the division would have loved to have.

You simply don't discard a starter who can throw 200 innings at a league-average run rate because you don't think his peripherials add up to his 2005 ERA.

Drungo, excellent post. You certainly made me feel better about him.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not reaching any conclusion. Chen's just pitched like the type of pitcher he is peripherally, and clearly that hasn't been a good combo for his ERA.

All I'm saying is that if Chen does finish with an ERA near 5 and it takes us 15 starts or so to realize that it's finally time to replace him, I think that would have justified not starting him in the rotation.

It would have hurt his feelings and the team wouldn't have liked the GM though, so it was not a good idea to sign someone with a 4.25 ERA or something (consider how many more wins a year that is than 4.95) if it meant sending your best starter last year to the bullpen.

Whatever. I don't agree, but I guess the feeling is that respect means more than performance sometimes.

I'm reserving judgement, and if someone can find the average ERAs for 5th starters and it's near 5, than maybe I was wrong and Chen's fine. The problem is though, Rodrigo Lopez is essentially a 5th starter too and Kris Benson is not much better than him. I still think Cabrera and Bedard will be great, Chen will be real bad, and I'm reserving judgement. Obviously though, the thing with Chen is that even if he pitches similar to last year, I think his ERA will be near 5. Cabrera can't pitch similar to last year. He needs to cut down his walks drastically. I can not invade Daniel Cabrera's brain. So those of you who keep telling me I've been 'wrong' about him so far, please stop. If he pulls a Rick Ankiel, there's nothing I can do. Some players can harness their control, some can't. So far, Cabrera hasn't. No one thought his ERA would be good if he couldn't get his control in check, and there was no way to tell if that would happen. If he does, Daniel Cabrera will be an incredible pitcher.

Btw, my idea was to sign someone. With what we had, I would have had Chen in the rotation.

Yes you did...And here is the guy you wanted, Esteban Loaiza:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5368

[Sports Guy]

What? If he has an ERA in the high fours he's not going to be replaced.

Let's look at the rest of the AL East last year and figure where Chen would have been had he pitched the same number of innings but had a 4.90 ERA:

Yankees: Third starter. The Yanks got 36 starts from pitchers with 5.50+ ERAs.

Red Sox: All of their regular starters had between a 4.15 and a 4.95 ERA, so he'd have been somewhere in the back of their rotation.

Blue Jays: Fourth starter. Ted Lilly and David Bush combined for 49 starts and a 5.00 ERA.

Devil Rays: Number two. The Rays had four starters who threw 100+ innings and had a 5.60+ ERA.

In the entire division there were only five starters with 200 innings and and ERA below 5.00. So even if you consider Chen's "real" ERA to be in the high-4.00s he's a good innings eater that any team in the division would have loved to have.

You simply don't discard a starter who can throw 200 innings at a league-average run rate because you don't think his peripherials add up to his 2005 ERA.

Great post...Tried to give you rep points but it wouldn't allow me.

[AgentOrange]

Great post...Tried to give you rep points but it wouldn't allow me.

Don't worry, I did for you.

I still think the reason people don't like Chen and have a short leash on him is because he doesn't throw hard.

If he threw harder, people would give him more time.

Thats my 2 cents.

[bryanman8]

I still think the reason people don't like Chen and have a short leash on him is because he doesn't throw hard.

I don't think so. I don't care if you throw 50 MPH if you find away to not walk guys, strike out some guys, and keep the ball in the ballpark. Maybe Chen's speed has something to do with why he can't strike out more guys or allows so many homers, but all that matters is the result. Speed is just a way of getting there and it doesn't effect my opinion of a pitcher.