The Great Tillman Debate

[Mackus]

He averaged 3.39 ER per GS. That's .39 ER worse than *averaging* a QS. Nobody's getting yanked for that.

Yes that's what he averaged, but obviously that doesn't mean he gave up between 3 and 4 runs every time out.

If we had 3-4 other starters that we could rely on for consistent innings, I don't think he would have gotten to 200 IP. He wouldn't have missed by much if it was just because of games we tried to eek out a few other innings from him rather than go to the bullpen, but he would have missed, since if he was pulled even one third of an inning early in just one start he would have missed.

This argument of Guthrie as some sort of workhorse makes little sense to me. He's been somewhat injury prone, or at least full-season stamina deprived, his first two years and he finally stayed healthy last year but was ineffective.

[RShack]

Yes that's what he averaged, but obviously that doesn't mean he gave up between 3 and 4 runs every time out.

If we had 3-4 other starters that we could rely on for consistent innings, I don't think he would have gotten to 200 IP. He wouldn't have missed by much if it was just because of games we tried to eek out a few other innings from him rather than go to the bullpen, but he would have missed, since if he was pulled even one third of an inning early in just one start he would have missed.

This argument of Guthrie as some sort of workhorse makes little sense to me. He's been somewhat injury prone, or at least full-season stamina deprived, his first two years and he finally stayed healthy last year but was ineffective.

This makes no sense. In 2007, he was 31st in the league in IP. In 2008, he was 21st. Last year, he was 17th. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has "3-4 other starters" who can do that. Nobody. He would have been an important member of the rotation for each and every team in MLB.

[Mackus]

This makes no sense. In 2007, he was 31st in the league in IP. In 2008, he was 21st. Last year, he was 17th. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has "3-4 other starters" who can do that. Nobody. He would have been an important member of the rotation for each and every team in MLB.

This really isn't complicated.

I'm not saying if we had 3-4 more starters who could go 200 innings. But if we didn't have 3 guys in the rotation (Eaton, Hernandez, Bergesen) who were struggling to get through 4 innings for a couple months, we wouldn't have had to leave Guthrie in there getting shelled for 6+ innings out of desperation to get the bullpen some much-needed rest. If we had respectable, MLB pitchers in the rotation for the whole year, I don't think Guthrie would have gotten to 200 IP.

[Tony-OH]

This makes no sense. In 2007, he was 31st in the league in IP. In 2008, he was 21st. Last year, he was 17th. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has "3-4 other starters" who can do that. Nobody. He would have been an important member of the rotation for each and every team in MLB.

Point to Shack..

I think people really under estimate what an innings eater can do for you. Obviously Guthrie needs to be better than he was last year, but he has value if he can pitch to a sub-5.00 ERA while throwing 200 innings. Even in games where he gave up some runs, he at least helped rest that bullpen and sometimes that's pretty darn important.

It 22 of his 33 starts he gave up 4 earned runs or less. That's keeping your team in games more times than not.

He also got into the 7th inning in 14 of his 33 starts including 10 of his last 15 starts.

[TGO]

Yes that's what he averaged, but obviously that doesn't mean he gave up between 3 and 4 runs every time out.

ER per GS is just a flawed stat, and if you're going to use it at all, you need to realize that in order to call someone a good pitcher, you have to look for an average of LESS THAN a quality start. Look at Scott Baker, 200 IP, same as Guthrie. Exactly average ERA+ of 100, and 2.94 ER/GS. Despite "averaging a quality start" he only posted a quality start in 48% of his starts.

For that matter, Hernandez and Tillman both beat Guthrie in ER/GS (both in the 3.2s). Should both of them make it ahead of Guthrie? I bet RShack would say no. So why rely on this silly, completely made-up statistic?

Now, one thing that I will say is that Guthrie had some games where he just soaked up a beating, and that has an effect stats-wise. Despite the numbers he put up 15 quality starts to Scott Baker's 16, in the same number of games.

But if you want to stay in a big league rotation that isn't crappy, you have to limit the beatings. Our rotation was crappy last year. This was exactly Mackus's point. If our rotation gets better and Guthrie doesn't, he will be marginalized.

[Dr. FLK]

This makes no sense. In 2007, he was 31st in the league in IP. In 2008, he was 21st. Last year, he was 17th. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has "3-4 other starters" who can do that. Nobody. He would have been an important member of the rotation for each and every team in MLB.

Or maybe...nobody has had starters bad enough that they had that many innings to give to a guy who isn't any good.

[Mackus]

Point to Shack..

I think people really under estimate what an innings eater can do for you. Obviously Guthrie needs to be better than he was last year, but he has value if he can pitch to a sub-5.00 ERA while throwing 200 innings. Even in games where he gave up some runs, he at least help rest that bullpen and sometimes that's pretty darn important.

It 22 of his 33 starts he gave up 4 earned runs or less. That's keeping your team in games more times than not.

An innings eater is important if the bulk of the rest of your rotation is unreliable, as ours was last year and may or may not be this year.

But, if you've got more reliable arms who can go deep enough into games where saving your bullpen isn't a #1 concern, then someone who can pitch 200+ innings at a 5ish ERA wouldn't be as valuable as someone who may not be as durable but is far more effective.

[Tony-OH]

Or maybe...nobody has had starters bad enough that they had that many innings to give to a guy who isn't any good.

If you think Guthrie isn't very good you clearly did not look at all his numbers last year including his second half. Guthrie had a bad year for him, but even if he repeats that kind of year he has value in the rotation. See my post above about innings per start.

[RShack]

Or maybe...nobody has had starters bad enough that they had that many innings to give to a guy who isn't any good.

Every MLB team had SP's worse than that. Every one.

If you think Guthrie would not have been an important part of every MLB team's rotation, I'm guessing it's because you haven't looked.

[Tony-OH]

An innings eater is important if the bulk of the rest of your rotation is unreliable, as ours was last year and may or may not be this year.

But, if you've got more reliable arms who can go deep enough into games where saving your bullpen isn't a #1 concern, then someone who can pitch 200+ innings at a 5ish ERA wouldn't be as valuable as someone who may not be as durable but is far more effective.

That depends on how many times your other starters are going 6 or 7 innings. Guthrie could be a starter on just about any team in baseball. He's probably closer to a 4 or 5 on the tops teams, but he certainly keeps the team in the game far more times than not. Guthrie failed to go five innings in only four starts all season.

[Sports Guy]

If you think Guthrie isn't very good you clearly did not look at all his numbers last year including his second half. Guthrie had a bad year for him, but even if he repeats that kind of year he has value in the rotation. See my post above about innings per start.

Agreed...If we get 200 innings of 5 ERA baseball from Guthrie, he still has value..for this year.

But I wouldn't want to pay him anymore than he is making this year to do that.

[Tony-OH]

Truth hurts huh?

Slappy12...what exactly is my one track that I am thinking?

Stop, no more.. anything else from you or anyone else in this thread that's directed at another poster is getting the rest of the day off.

[tvz1997]

*Editted*

I wonder what y'all think of the difference in Guthrie's trade value if he is a D+/C- starter versus a B+ reliever. I don't know if he can be a B+ reliever, but just for the sake of discussion...

I think we are more concerned with building up his trade value now since it is looking so doubtful that he returns next year no matter how he performs.

Edit. Sorry, Tony. I didn't see your post before sending my last post. (Didn't say anything confrontational.)

[Mackus]

That depends on how many times your other starters are going 6 or 7 innings. Guthrie could be a starter on just about any team in baseball. He's probably closer to a 4 or 5 on the tops teams, but he certainly keeps the team in the game far more times than not. Guthrie failed to go five innings in only four starts all season.

I'm saying that if he pitches exactly as effectively as he did last season (and we get a more consistent performance from the rest of our starters) that he won't be able to get to 200 innings even if he is just as healthy and durable.

I think he probably got at least 10 and maybe more innings last year than he would have if Trembley had a more rested bullpen. I'm not thinking of any specific example, but Guthrie was oftentimes a guy we left in there when he had given up 4 ER in the first 4 innings to try and get another couple innings out of him to save the bullpen, when someone like Hernandez or Berken would have been pulled.

Guthrie will have to pitch better this year than he did last year to cover the same number of innings as he did last year. That's my hypothesis.

[TGO]

That depends on how many times your other starters are going 6 or 7 innings. Guthrie could be a starter on just about any team in baseball. He's probably closer to a 4 or 5 on the tops teams, but he certainly keeps the team in the game far more times than not. Guthrie failed to go five innings in only four starts all season.

No one is arguing that Guthrie couldn't start for a lot of teams. He certainly would, though at #5 in most cases rather than #1. This is getting turned into a bigger controversy than it is.

What Mackus and I are saying is that if Guthrie pitched the way he did on a bunch of other teams, he would not have pitched 200 innings. The proof is right there in the stats. He is the only guy who pitched 200 innings at over 5.00 ERA. He's the only guy over 4.50! Pavano was 2/3 of an inning away from 200 and would have been in the 5.00/200 club with him, in large part because he pitched most of the year for Cleveland, another crappy pitching staff.