Tillman

[Sports Guy]

There's nothing inevitable about it. People talk like Bergy's performance was a fluke. I think a lot of that is because they didn't see it coming. To me, he looked like he knew exactly what he was trying to do and he knew how to do it. He might not do as well, or he might do just as well, or he might do better. Last year, he was bringing his ERA down, month by month. By the end of May, he had settled in, and after that his ERA was something like 2.50 for 2 months and a dozen starts until he got hit by the line drive. Who knows what it would have been by the end if it wasn't for that freak thing stopping his season. We'll see what he does this year, but I'm certainly not betting against him. Not everybody who's good at first turns out to be a mirage. I'm more worried about his leg thing somehow messing him up than I am about the much ballyhooed regression that's supposed to happen because his peripherals said he wasn't supposed to be as good as he actually was. In actual fact, he was excellent anyway, and that's true no matter how un-good his peripherals said he was supposed to be. Last year, even with a so-so first couple months, he still performed like a #1 SP. Until he doesn't, that's his track record. So far, there is no mean to regress to except that.

I know you like to discount a lot of the peripheral stats but those combined with his skill set and MiL track record say that he SHOULD regress.

Of course, he could do as good again. Then again, BRob could have a 750 OPS, Matusz could be terrible and Atkins could have a 900 OPS.

[RShack]

I know you like to discount a lot of the peripheral stats but those combined with his skill set and MiL track record say that he SHOULD regress.

Of course, he could do as good again. Then again, BRob could have a 750 OPS, Matusz could be terrible and Atkins could have a 900 OPS.

I certainly don't intend to discount the fact that there are common correlations between peripherals and success (or lack thereof). I just don't buy that they are the end-all of whether a guy is gonna actually succeed, that's all.

Aren't peripherals what tell us that Guthrie wasn't supposed to pitch like a solid #2 in 2007? But he did anyway. Don't they also say he wasn't supposed to pitch like a solid #2 again in 2008? But he did anyway. They also tell us that Bergy wasn't supposed to pitch like a #1 last year. But he did anyway. So, "discount them" compared to what? As interesting and useful guidelines? No, I don't discount them as that. But I do discount them as being the determinants of whether a guy succeeds. There's just too many cases when guys succeed when peripherals say they shouldn't. So there's important stuff going on in addition to what peripherals show us, and I don't buy that it's "just luck".

I don't buy that peripherals are the real measure of success and that actual performance is illusory. I think that's backwards. What's real is how a guy actually does, not how peripherals said he should have done. Peripherals are, um, peripheral to success. That's why they're called peripherals. There's nothing about them that I intend to diss. I just don't buy what some folks do with them, which is way different than either diss'ing the numbers themselves or dissing the general patterns that they show. I can certainly understand how you can look at peripherals and think that Bergy's odds of pitching well again (or Guthrie's, or whomever's) would be greater if his peripherals were better. I'm perfectly fine with that. But that's way, way different than people talking like he's virtually certain to crash to earth from last year...

[Jdan14]

I certainly don't intend to discount the fact that there are common correlations between peripherals and success (or lack thereof). I just don't buy that they are the end-all of whether a guy is gonna actually succeed, that's all.

Aren't peripherals what tell us that Guthrie wasn't supposed to pitch like a solid #2 in 2007? But he did anyway. Don't they also say he wasn't supposed to pitch like a solid #2 again in 2008? But he did anyway. They also tell us that Bergy wasn't supposed to pitch like a #1 last year. But he did anyway. So, "discount them" compared to what? As interesting and useful guidelines? No, I don't discount them as that. But I do discount them as being the determinants of whether a guy succeeds. There's just too many cases when guys succeed when peripherals say they shouldn't. So there's important stuff going on in addition to what peripherals show us, and I don't buy that it's "just luck".

I don't buy that peripherals are the real measure of success and that actual performance is illusory. I think that's backwards. What's real is how a guy actually does, not how peripherals said he should have done. Peripherals are, um, peripheral to success. That's why they're called peripherals. There's nothing about them that I intend to diss. I just don't buy what some folks do with them, which is way different than either diss'ing the numbers themselves or dissing the general patterns that they show. I can certainly understand how you can look at peripherals and think that Bergy's odds of pitching well again (or Guthrie's, or whomever's) would be greater if his peripherals were better. I'm perfectly fine with that. But that's way, way different than people talking like he's virtually certain to crash to earth from last year...

It has been a while since I've posted because I am running out of posts but man this one hits it on the head for me this off season. I just do not understand why people assume Brad "The IceBerg" Berg. is going to fail this year simply because his peripherals say he shouldn't succeed like he did. He was the smartest pitcher I have ever seen in an O's uniform. He understood how his arm angel affected his approach and how his approach affected his performance and his ultimate outcome. He listened to the Crow and he was a pitcher He knows what he is doing on the mound. Matusz is a dirty pitcher but I have no reason to thinkg the IceBerg isn't going to put up Lowe type numbers.

[tilgaham]

If we sign another Veteran Starter, why not just put Tillman in a Long Relief bullpen role and let him face MLB hitters on a regular basis?

[RShack]

It has been a while since I've posted because I am running out of posts but man this one hits it on the head for me this off season. I just do not understand why people assume Brad "The IceBerg" Berg. is going to fail this year simply because his peripherals say he shouldn't succeed like he did. He was the smartest pitcher I have ever seen in an O's uniform. He understood how his arm angel affected his approach and how his approach affected his performance and his ultimate outcome. He listened to the Crow and he was a pitcher He knows what he is doing on the mound. Matusz is a dirty pitcher but I have no reason to thinkg the IceBerg isn't going to put up Lowe type numbers.

It's like Bergesen had 2 different seasons last year:

• For his first 7 GS, he had a 5.49 ERA, an ERA+ of 85, and he averaged less than 17 outs/GS. Those numbers are almost exactly the same as you see for Tillman's season. By the metric I use, that's a #5 SP and puts him within 1 point of Tillman. But that was just through May 24th.

  .

• After that, he was like a different guy. He had 12 GS after that, and in those he averaged 21 outs/GS at an ERA of 2.46, which translates to an ERA+ of 189. That's not just a #1 SP, that's performing at a solid CYA-level. That's not quite as good as Greinke did, but it's better than how King Felix and Halladay did over the whole season, and is notably better than guys like Cliff Lee and Sabathia and Verlander and Lester did.

Now, I know it's 12 GS, not 30, so it's not the same thing. But 12 GS is not just a little a spurt either. He did that for a solid stretch, from the last part of May through all of both June and July, and it ended when it did only because of that dang line drive. He can come down from that level quite a bit and still perform at a #1 level. When you take his whole season, both the #5-part and the CYA-part and combine them, you still get a very solid #1 SP level performance. By my metric, he was #8 among AL SP's last year, behind the guys I mentioned above, and in front of everybody else. (Note: I'm just talking about how well he performed when he pitched, not about how much he didn't pitch.)

When a guy comes out of AA and does something like that, it's special. I think it's sad that the main attention it seems to get here is that his peripherals suck and he's bound to crash. The guy did something that's actually quite amazing, but I guess we're supposed to be "realistic" and decide it was mostly luck. Well, I'm not deciding that. I'm looking forward to watching him be good again.

[Wadesworld35]

I certainly don't intend to discount the fact that there are common correlations between peripherals and success (or lack thereof). I just don't buy that they are the end-all of whether a guy is gonna actually succeed, that's all.

Aren't peripherals what tell us that Guthrie wasn't supposed to pitch like a solid #2 in 2007? But he did anyway. Don't they also say he wasn't supposed to pitch like a solid #2 again in 2008? But he did anyway. They also tell us that Bergy wasn't supposed to pitch like a #1 last year. But he did anyway. So, "discount them" compared to what? As interesting and useful guidelines? No, I don't discount them as that. But I do discount them as being the determinants of whether a guy succeeds. There's just too many cases when guys succeed when peripherals say they shouldn't. So there's important stuff going on in addition to what peripherals show us, and I don't buy that it's "just luck".

I don't buy that peripherals are the real measure of success and that actual performance is illusory. I think that's backwards. What's real is how a guy actually does, not how peripherals said he should have done. Peripherals are, um, peripheral to success. That's why they're called peripherals. There's nothing about them that I intend to diss. I just don't buy what some folks do with them, which is way different than either diss'ing the numbers themselves or dissing the general patterns that they show. I can certainly understand how you can look at peripherals and think that Bergy's odds of pitching well again (or Guthrie's, or whomever's) would be greater if his peripherals were better. I'm perfectly fine with that. But that's way, way different than people talking like he's virtually certain to crash to earth from last year...

I think you're creating a straw man here. I don't think very many people at all are positing that Bergesen is going to be a complete failure in 2010.

And anyways, how do you measure "success?" ERA? Wins versus losses? All these are statistics just like the "peripherals" you reference. The difference is the consistency of those numbers over time. As it turns out, the "peripheral" numbers tend to predict future performance better than the traditional pitching metrics. I believe it is very reasonable to expect a diminution in Bergesen's performance in this upcoming season.

[Frobby]

Face it, Bergesen has earned a spot in the 2010 rotation and is not really in competition with Tillman or anyone else unless he is just unbelievably awful, which I'm sure won't happpen this March. And while I do expect his ERA to rise in 2010, it is not "inevitable," nor would I really call it "regression" so long as he is still pitching like a solid major league starter, which I fully expect he will.

Keeping this thread focused on Tillman (isn't that the subject?), Trembley has said he goes into ST as the favorite to win the 5th starter job, but has to pitch well enough to keep it. That seems like the correct buapproach to me. You always have to go into ST realizing that some young player may jump out and surprise you with how much progress they have made. Bedard shocked everyone in 2004, and Bergesen was something of a revelation last spring. So, it's a fluid situation. I expect Tillman to pitch well enough to be in the Opening Day rotation, but we'll see.

[Sports Guy]

I certainly don't intend to discount the fact that there are common correlations between peripherals and success (or lack thereof). I just don't buy that they are the end-all of whether a guy is gonna actually succeed, that's all.

Aren't peripherals what tell us that Guthrie wasn't supposed to pitch like a solid #2 in 2007? But he did anyway. Don't they also say he wasn't supposed to pitch like a solid #2 again in 2008? But he did anyway. They also tell us that Bergy wasn't supposed to pitch like a #1 last year. But he did anyway. So, "discount them" compared to what? As interesting and useful guidelines? No, I don't discount them as that. But I do discount them as being the determinants of whether a guy succeeds. There's just too many cases when guys succeed when peripherals say they shouldn't. So there's important stuff going on in addition to what peripherals show us, and I don't buy that it's "just luck".

I don't buy that peripherals are the real measure of success and that actual performance is illusory. I think that's backwards. What's real is how a guy actually does, not how peripherals said he should have done. Peripherals are, um, peripheral to success. That's why they're called peripherals. There's nothing about them that I intend to diss. I just don't buy what some folks do with them, which is way different than either diss'ing the numbers themselves or dissing the general patterns that they show. I can certainly understand how you can look at peripherals and think that Bergy's odds of pitching well again (or Guthrie's, or whomever's) would be greater if his peripherals were better. I'm perfectly fine with that. But that's way, way different than people talking like he's virtually certain to crash to earth from last year...

The peripherals are good for a future indicator..yes, players can outperform those stats...it happens all the time. But most of the time, they are pretty good at indicating what direction a player will go in the next year.

You bring up Guthrie...Yes, he outperformed those peripherals but it sure as hell caught up with him last year, didn't it?

As I said, there isn't anything about BB's history that says he will be as good as he was last year. I expect a 4.5+ ERA from him and for him to eat a lot of innings...That is obviously very valuable but its not the 3.43 ERA he had last year.

[Frobby]

The peripherals are good for a future indicator..yes, players can outperform those stats...it happens all the time. But most of the time, they are pretty good at indicating what direction a player will go in the next year.

You bring up Guthrie...Yes, he outperformed those peripherals but it sure as hell caught up with him last year, didn't it?

As I said, there isn't anything about BB's history that says he will be as good as he was last year. I expect a 4.5+ ERA from him and for him to eat a lot of innings...That is obviously very valuable but its not the 3.43 ERA he had last year.

I feel there was more going on with Guthrie last year than merely his peripherals catching up to him. Specifically, he made too many mistake pitches last year, and the hitters punished him for it. I think you basically agree with me on this, as I believe you've said you expect a partial bounce back from Guthrie.

As to Bergy, if he shows the same command that he had last year before his injury, I'll take the under on 4.50 ERA proposition. Not expecting 3.43, though I'd gladly be wrong.

[Sports Guy]

I feel there was more going on with Guthrie last year than merely his peripherals catching up to him. Specifically, he made too many mistake pitches last year, and the hitters punished him for it. I think you basically agree with me on this, as I believe you've said you expect a partial bounce back from Guthrie.

As to Bergy, if he shows the same command that he had last year before his injury, I'll take the under on 4.50 ERA proposition. Not expecting 3.43, though I'd gladly be wrong.

To me. the peripherals stats don't say the pitcher will be as bad as his FIP said he was...They say you will see a worse performance, perhaps significantly worse.

I expected Guthrie to have a 4.4ish ERA last year, give or take...he was much worse than that.

The 4.4ish ERA would have still been a good season BUT it wouldn't have been the sub 4 ERA he had in the other 2 years.

Its like BB...he could pitch well in 2010 and have a 4.3 ERA...That would be a good season...But that is also much worse than his "actual ERA" of 2009.

[TyCobb]

If Tillman isn't on the MLB opening day roster, then I will want DT to be fired.

[JTrea81]

If Tillman isn't on the MLB opening day roster, then I will want DT to be fired.

Even if he's not the best pitcher to help us win games at the #5 spot?

If Tillman is serving up dingers left and right like he did last season, I don't want him coming north with the club.

The goal is to win as many games as we can this season.

If Tillman isn't the best pitcher for the #5 spot, he should stay in Norfolk until he can do the things he needs to do to be successful in the majors.

He need to work on getting people out without pitching up into the zone with his fastball as much as he does. If he can do that in ST, great. If not, then send him down to make him work on it there and don't let him pitch the way he had been.

[TyCobb]

Even if he's not the best pitcher to help us win games at the #5 spot?

If Tillman is serving up dingers left and right like he did last season, I don't want him coming north with the club.

The goal is to win as many games as we can this season.

If Tillman isn't the best pitcher for the #5 spot, he should stay in Norfolk until he can do the things he needs to do to be successful in the majors.

IMO, Tillman is our best pitcher. What was the point of bringing him up last year if the O's didn't feel he was ready?

Bronson Arroyo had a 3.84 ERA and gave up 31 hrs (3rd most)

John Danks had a 3.77 ERA and gave up 28 hrs

Dan Haren had a 3.14 ERA and gave up 27 Hrs

Edwin Jackson had a 3.62 ERA and gave up 27 hrs

Mark Buehrle had a 3.14 ERA and gave up 27 hrs

Giving up a lot of hrs isn't the end of the world for a pitcher. Heck J. Santana came 5th in CY young voting and lead the league with 33 hrs (3.33 ERA that year).

[GoldGlove21]

If Tillman isn't on the MLB opening day roster, then I will want DT to be fired.

If Tillman isn't a starter after sprinf training then it will be for two reasons, he either didn;t pitch well in the Spring or Andy MacPhail wanted him in the minors to start the season. I would like to see Tillma perform in the majors like everyone else, but I saw little from him last season at the ML level that should guarantee him a spot in the starting rotation following ST. If the Orioles are going to have depth in the area of pitching then they should use that depth and make people earn their starting jobs. If Tillman pitched poorly and Arrieta pitched great would you have an issue with Arrieta taking the role of the fifth starter and Tillman starting the year in the minors?

[GoldGlove21]

IMO, Tillman is our best pitcher. What was the point of bringing him up last year if the O's didn't feel he was ready?

Bronson Arroyo had a 3.84 ERA and gave up 31 hrs (3rd most)

John Danks had a 3.77 ERA and gave up 28 hrs

Dan Haren had a 3.14 ERA and gave up 27 Hrs

Edwin Jackson had a 3.62 ERA and gave up 27 hrs

Mark Buehrle had a 3.14 ERA and gave up 27 hrs

Giving up a lot of hrs isn't the end of the world for a pitcher. Heck J. Santana came 5th in CY young voting and lead the league with 33 hrs (3.33 ERA that year).

Giving up homeruns and keeping your ERA under 4 is not the same as giving up homeruns and keeping your ERA in the mid 5's. If you go by minor league numbers then Tillman should be the fifth starter, but those numbers do not always translate at the big league level. If David Hernandez or Jake Arrieta pitch lights out in the Spring and Tillman struggles then why not let the guy who earned the spot keep the job? Tillman would just be the next man up if there was an injury or trade. Even if the Orioles were going to give Tillman the #5 spot they should spread the rumor that it is an open competition to see if another pitcher steps up.