Don't trade RLo.

[oriole_way]

After reading through the 6 pages of this thread, I have a few questions than maybe someone would like to answer.

Someone mentioned that it has been documented on many telecasts that Lopez has lost a few mph on his pitches.

1. Is that true? If so, any hypotheses why? He's only 30, hasn't had any serious arm issues and while he did rack up 209 innings last year, it's not an extraordinary workload. In his last start against Cleveland, I thought I heard that he was touching the low 90s with his fastball. Was that an anomaly? How hard did he throw in previous seasons?

2. This is probably moot since we likely won't demote him to the bullpen, but does anyone remember why he was so successful when in the pen a couple years ago? Was he able to throw a bit harder since he didn't have to pace himself?

Thanks in advance.

As for the whole discussion about trading R lo, I could care less. I would like to see the Orioles trade him for something valuable but I doubt that will happen. If I were a fan of another team, I wouldn't want them to give up something valuable to acquire him. I would also like to see him demoted to the bullpen since he was successful there in the past (albeit it was a small sample size) but most people on this board think that's not a possibility for various reasons (salary, attitude).

What I would care about is if somehow one of Benson, Cabrera, Bedard, Loewen and Penn are traded and R lo is still a starting pitcher for us next year. Unless the return in the trade for one of the other pitchers mentioned is overwhelming, I think I might develop an aneurysm. Needless to say, that goes for Ortiz and Chen as well.

[TinCup]

Think about this (Shack and other RLo supporters)..the vast majority of folks would like to see us dump RLo to IMPROVE. RLo is nothing special, a so-called league average pitcher..at best. Personally, I think that is even giving him too much credit. Alas, for the O's few if any other teams are interested in giving up anything of real value for RLo. Well gee, I wonder why that is? Maybe because all of the other teams see RLo for exactly what he is.... an overpaid, very average pitcher with a 6+ ERA. We would be fortunate to trade him. These excuses of keeping him around because he is a work horse or better than Chen/Ortiz are quite weak. Classic conundrum...we want to dump our trash, but can't find a sucker team to trade with, so we are stuck with him.

[wildcard]

First, Chen and Ortiz have to go. There are both worse than RLo. They are replaced by Loewen and Burres.

When Penn is ready, probably around the first of August, he goes into the rotation and RLo goes to the pen.

There is no question that the rotation should be Bedard, Benson, Cabrera, Loewen and Penn.

Now, raise you hand if you honestly think that the rotation is going to pitch the last 2 months of the season without injury or a tired arm. Under normal conditions, I don't see it. Its too much to ask for.

The replacement if RLo is not here.

Birkins - Why would you do that to that kid. He is already overachieving. His minor league stats show no reason to believe he can go five innings in the majors and why, why, why would you take him out of pitching in relief where he is comfortable? It kind of like pitching Benson of three days rest. Don't do that again. The results are predictable.

Stephens, DuBose - Please. Why would anyone think these guy can go 5 inning against Boston or the Yankees.

Bowles - He's a reliever guys. Before the O's where forced to put him in the rotation this year, he had not started in 5 years. There is absolutely no reason to believe he could go 5 innings in the majors.

Johnson - Not ready to face Boston and Toronto. Needs more time to avoid a really bad experience.

Burres - I agree you could do it, but is that the best thing for this kid. He is having a great, unexpected year. He might even have a future here. Isn't he better in a long reliever role for a while. Do you really want to tell him to go five innings against Toronto. Loewen did it. He jumped into the fire. Do you really want to bet that is the best thing for Burres? Does he have Loewen's stuff?

If you don't have starters that can go a least 5 innings you are putting too much pressure on the pen and then the whole thing breaks down. It gets down right ugly.

That is why I say keep RLo. He can relieve. He can start. He has pitched well in 5 of this last 9 starts. He is not the future, but he is not a free agent until after 2007.

Now if someone offers you something of value, something the fits and makes the team better, you probably have to trade him.

But don't give him away. Don't treat him like a spare part. His value is very low, but if he can pitch well in relief he can regain some of his value.

I think he could save the O's from a lot of grief over the next 80 days. And maybe he saves the O's from asking too much from one of their starters that could cause them injury. Maybe if RLo is here when Bedard gets tired they sit him instead of pushing him to do more. RLo being here could save a future ace and former Tommy John surgery surviver. It could be any one of the starting five that needs the rest. I'd keep RLo for now and see what happens.

[TinCup]

ad nauseum... if you can get value in return, you trade him!

But that is the problem, getting anything of value.....

[TinCup]

And one more thing, this stuff like "He has pitched well in 5 of this last 9 starts"..... please, save it.

For the season he has been horrible.

ERA for April: 6.81

for May: 6.94

for June: 5.06 (facing weaker/slumping teams, e.g., the Nats and Phils)

for July: 12.91, yes, that's right, 12.91.

Last year, he finished with a none too inspiring 4.90 ERA.

We need to stop being so damned forgiving with our players. RLo is not going to help us win. He is just another overpaid arm that a team like the O's hopes and prays can put it together and get some wins. But in the long run, he is simply not good enough to make a difference.

[wildcard]

And one more thing, this stuff like "He has pitched well in 5 of this last 9 starts"..... please, save it.

For the season he has been horrible.

ERA for April: 6.81

for May: 6.94

for June: 5.06 (facing weaker/slumping teams, e.g., the Nats and Phils)

for July: 12.91, yes, that's right, 12.91.

Last year, he finished with a none too inspiring 4.90 ERA.

We need to stop being so damned forgiving with our players. RLo is not going to help us win. He is just another overpaid arm that a team like the O's hopes and prays can put it together and get some wins. But in the long run, he is simply not good enough to make a difference.

Can't agree with your logic here.

You can pick on the 4.90 ERA if you want but baseball is about winning games and he won 15.

This year he was terrible early. And his overall performance is not something that says he is in the O's future rotation but the 'what have you done for me lately' question is an important one. I tells you that there is a decent chance he can help you the rest of the season if he is needed.

So we differ on how important the pitching well in 5 of 9 is.

I agree that if you get something that really helps the team you probably have to trade him. But he has value to the O's in adding depth to the staff.

[Mackus]

You can pick on the 4.90 ERA if you want but baseball is about winning games and he won 15.

I can't agree with this logic.

Without even getting into things like K/9, BB/9, and HR/9, gimme the pitcher with a 4.25 ERA and a 10-15 record over a pitcher with a 5.00 and a 15-10 record any day of the week.

Wins and losses are pretty darn meaningless. ERA isn't a wonderful indicator of how a pitcher will do down the road, but its 100 times better than won/loss record.

[DrungoHazewood]

Can't agree with your logic here.

You can pick on the 4.90 ERA if you want but baseball is about winning games and he won 15.

Can't agree with your logic here.

Baseball is about winning, and if you allow runs at a rate 15% below average (which is what a 4.90 ERA was in 2005) you'll tend to lose more games than you win. If you get lucky and your team scores a bunch of runs in your starts it doesn't make you any more of a pitcher.

[Frobby]

Can't agree with your logic here.

Baseball is about winning, and if you allow runs at a rate 15% below average (which is what a 4.90 ERA was in 2005) you'll tend to lose more games than you win. If you get lucky and your team scores a bunch of runs in your starts it doesn't make you any more of a pitcher.

Who would you rather have:

1. A pitcher who allows 3 runs over 7 IP in each of 4 starts and then gets bombed for 7 runs in 3 IP in the 5th start, or

2. A pitcher who allows 4 runs over 7 IP in 4 starts and 5 runs in 7 IP in the 5th start.

The second pitcher has the lower ERA but I think the first pitcher would win more games.

Lopez's season was like that last year. He won 15 games because he pitched really well in a fair number of games. His ERA was mediocre because he really got shelled in some of his losses.

I'm not defending him, just making a point about the misleading nature of ERA.

[wildcard]

I can't agree with this logic.

Without even getting into things like K/9, BB/9, and HR/9, gimme the pitcher with a 4.25 ERA and a 10-15 record over a pitcher with a 5.00 and a 15-10 record any day of the week.

Wins and losses are pretty darn meaningless. ERA isn't a wonderful indicator of how a pitcher will do down the road, but its 100 times better than won/loss record.

In most cases I would agree that a 4.90 stinks. And it is not wonderful in RLo case. But in 2005 he:

Pitched 17 games where he when at least 6 innings and allows 3 or less runs - thus the 15 wins

Plus 3 games where he went between 5 to 6 innings and allowed 3 for less runs

Pitched 15 games where he allowed 4 or more runs (sometimes as many as 10 runs)

I would say he deserved the 15 wins, he earned them.

And he deserved the 4.90 because he had 15 bad games.

All in all he was a decent starter that most teams would like to have in the bottom half of their rotation.

[wildcard]

Who would you rather have:

1. A pitcher who allows 3 runs over 7 IP in each of 4 starts and then gets bombed for 7 runs in 3 IP in the 5th start, or

2. A pitcher who allows 4 runs over 7 IP in 4 starts and 5 runs in 7 IP in the 5th start.

The second pitcher has the lower ERA but I think the first pitcher would win more games.

Lopez's season was like that last year. He won 15 games because he pitched really well in a fair number of games. His ERA was mediocre because he really got shelled in some of his losses.

I'm not defending him, just making a point about the misleading nature of ERA.

My point exactly.

[TinCup]

In most cases I would agree that a 4.90 stinks. And it is not wonderful in RLo case. But in 2005 he:

Pitched 17 games where he when at least 6 innings and allows 3 or less runs - thus the 15 wins

Plus 3 games where he went between 5 to 6 innings and allowed 3 for less runs

Pitched 15 games where he allowed 4 or more runs (sometimes as many as 10 runs)

I would say he deserved the 15 wins, he earned them.

And he deserved the 4.90 because he had 15 bad games.

All in all he was a decent starter that most teams would like to have in the bottom half of their rotation.

One person's "decent" is another person's "mediocre". If a 4.90 ERA last year and a markedly higher one this year is 'decent', then that brings new definition to the word decent (15 wins last year notwithstanding).

[DrungoHazewood]

Who would you rather have:

1. A pitcher who allows 3 runs over 7 IP in each of 4 starts and then gets bombed for 7 runs in 3 IP in the 5th start, or

2. A pitcher who allows 4 runs over 7 IP in 4 starts and 5 runs in 7 IP in the 5th start.

The second pitcher has the lower ERA but I think the first pitcher would win more games.

Lopez's season was like that last year. He won 15 games because he pitched really well in a fair number of games. His ERA was mediocre because he really got shelled in some of his losses.

I'm not defending him, just making a point about the misleading nature of ERA.

I think that's a little misleading. Because the guy who gets bombed in 1/5th of his starts will win about 0% of those starts. He'll win some percent of the others, but that percentage will be less than 100. Let's say 60. In 30 starts that's 14 wins.

Pitcher #2... let's say he wins 50% of his starts where he allows four runs, but 35% of the ones where he allows five runs. That's 14 wins.

Maybe the details of that scenerio aren't exactly right, but the point is the guy who gets bombed 20 or 30% of the time will win almost none of those games, while the guy who just allows 4-5 runs a start will win half of those. I think the 4.90 is a pretty good measure.

[wildcard]

I think that's a little misleading. Because the guy who gets bombed in 1/5th of his starts will win about 0% of those starts. He'll win some percent of the others, but that percentage will be less than 100. Let's say 60. In 30 starts that's 14 wins.

Pitcher #2... let's say he wins 50% of his starts where he allows four runs, but 35% of the ones where he allows five runs. That's 14 wins.

Maybe the details of that scenerio aren't exactly right, but the point is the guy who gets bombed 20 or 30% of the time will win almost none of those games, while the guy who just allows 4-5 runs a start will win half of those. I think the 4.90 is a pretty good measure.

Not if you have a poor offense which the O's did last year. The guy who gives up 4 to 5 runs with the O's last year is a loser more times then not. The guy who gives up 3 or less 20 times is a 15 game winner.

[Mackus]

All in all he was a decent starter that most teams would like to have in the bottom half of their rotation.

I dont know if I'd rather have a guy that gives that either has a quality start or bombs or a guy who goes 6-7 IP with 3-5 ER each start.

Either way, the guys record is in no way in his hands. All that matters is how many runs are scored on a given night. You could have these two pitchers on your team and one could go 10-15 and the other 15-10, or it could be the other way around.

If a pitchers record has very little to do with how well he pitches, why should we bother looking at it? Especially to determine how they are going to do down the road. Sure, a pitchers overall win/loss record over a career means something, but even that can be very prone to outside conditions, such as how good the team was over those seasons.

I don't think W/L means anything for a guy who's only pitched in a handful of seasons, like Rodrigo.