Arrieta vs Matusz

[Sports Guy]

By my count, Arietta has made 15 starts, 8 of which were good to excellent, 7 of which were poor. In his 7 poor starts he has allowed 32 ER in 31 IP.

Matusz has made 26 starts, 18 of which I rate good to excellent, one of which I rate mediocre, 7 of which I rate poor. In his 7 poor starts, Matusz has allowed 45 ER in 29.1 IP.

So, you are correct that when Matusz has a bad day, he does worse than Arrieta on his bad days. But Matusz has had only 7 bad outings in 26; Arrieta has had 7 bad outings in 15.

Matusz's ERA in his 19 mediocre to excellent outings is 2.49 and he averages 6.41 IP/start; Arrieta's ERA in his 8 good to excellent outings is 2.60 and he averages 6.50 IP per start. So, they're equally good when they're good, Matusz is worse when they're bad, but Matusz is good a higher percentage of the time.

Good stats but all pretty much meaningless in the context you are using them.

First of all, Arrieta is older and has a lot more pro experience...That accounts for something.

Secondly, Matusz has been around longer and the league has seen him more. So, because of that, there is more of a book out on him at this point.

[El Gordo]

I discount what Dempsey says because he is clueless.

Arrieta has a better fastball...but the secondary pitches are on the side of Matusz.

Arrieta would be the more dominant closer IMO.

I think Dempsey is a horses @$$, but he is not clueless. If knowing how to go to Fangraphs and look up at peripheral stats is knowing about baseball, then perhaps he is, but if there's more to it than that, then he isn't.:rolleyestf:

[Frobby]

Good stats but all pretty much meaningless in the context you are using them.

First of all, Arrieta is older and has a lot more pro experience...That accounts for something.

Secondly, Matusz has been around longer and the league has seen him more. So, because of that, there is more of a book out on him at this point.

I think what these stats show is that for both pitchers, the main thing they need to do is cut back on the number of poor days they have, and limit the damage on those days. On the days they have it, they've been very good.

Arrieta has more pro experience, but less major league experience, so I'm not surprised that he is having a rough outing more often than Matusz at this point, even though there may be more familiarity with Matusz.

[Old#5fan]

So you are saying that you are a "radar gun scout". They are just guys that prefer velocity over everything else, the same guys that sign D. Cabrera and R. Liz. The other side of the coin are guys that like to find refined secondaries and command, I tend to lean towards that because you can't teach velocity, you have it or you don't, but I like guys who know how to pitch and can set you up with various pitches. Just a preference thing though, you see it all the time in baseball, the guy that likes Matzek over Turner, or Matusz over Crow.

And Jake would make a better closer because you want a guy with good velocity back there, they only need two pitches, but when you can dial them up it helps a lot. A guy like Tillman could make a great closer in that sense because command issues are mitigated a bit. You don't have to try to nibble and stay around the zone if you can throw it over the plate at 94-97mph (when pitching an inning at a time you can throw harder than you normally would) and then drop that curve of his to go with it.

I am not saying at all that I am a "radar gun scout" I am just comparing these two young pitchers. Actually, I like both types of pitchers. I really don't favor Sandy Koufax over Jamie Moyer, or Nolan Ryan over Greg Maddox. However, in the dicussion of comparing these two younger pitchers I prefer Arrieta as I think he has more upside or potential.

I also wouldn't waste him as a closer. I think David Hernandez is someone who should be able to take that role as he's not starter material like Arrieta.

[Old#5fan]

I discount what Dempsey says because he is clueless.

Arrieta has a better fastball...but the secondary pitches are on the side of Matusz.

Arrieta would be the more dominant closer IMO.

So he was clueless when he was catching and calling games for Flanagan, Palmer and McGregor or just clueless now for this discussion?

It seems to me he is only clueless because his take on Arrieta's supports mine not yours. Just admit it. I have no problem with it, but if you think he is less knowledgeable than you about major league pitchers I have to laugh! That is flat out humorous. How many HOF pitchers have you called games for? :laughlol:

[Fuego!]

I don't understand how Arrieta's curveball can be considered a plus pitch by anyone.. He has a 1% swinging strike rate on his curve in the majors... That is downright awful. You can bring up the "small sample size" argument, but his curve is getting practically no swinging strikes.

[Sports Guy]

So he was clueless when he was catching and calling games for Flanagan, Palmer and McGregor or just clueless now for this discussion?

It seems to me he is only clueless because his take on Arrieta's supports mine not yours. Just admit it. I have no problem with it, but if you think he is less knowledgeable than you about major league pitchers I have to laugh! That is flat out humorous. How many HOF pitchers have you called games for? :laughlol:

Who cares that he played the game..That doesn't mean he has the ability to scout, analyze and understand stats.

He may have been a good catcher but that means nothing when deciding about his ability to talk about what he sees.

This is also a guy that always says Nick should win a GG...What do you say about that? That is Dempsey and Palmer saying that.

[Old#5fan]

I don't understand how Arrieta's curveball can be considered a plus pitch by anyone.. He has a 1% swinging strike rate on his curve in the majors... That is downright awful. You can bring up the "small sample size" argument, but his curve is getting practically no swinging strikes.

Probably because every hitter looks fastball at him as he doesn't throw that many curves. I actually think this is a good thing if he can get it over more frequently.

[Sports Guy]

Probably because every hitter looks fastball at him as he doesn't throw that many curves. I actually think this is a good thing if he can get it over more frequently.

No, its because he can't throw it for a strike on any kind of a consistent basis...Similar to Tillman.

[Old#5fan]

Who cares that he played the game..That doesn't mean he has the ability to scout, analyze and understand stats.

He may have been a good catcher but that means nothing when deciding about his ability to talk about what he sees.

This is also a guy that always says Nick should win a GG...What do you say about that? That is Dempsey and Palmer saying that.

Well I sure as heck woudn't say Dempsey is clueless just because I don't agree that Markakis deserves a GG. That would be as absurd as your statement that Dempsey cannot make an intelligent observation of a major league pitcher. I would just say I disagree with Dempsey and Palmer about Markakis but acknowledge they do know more than I do. Its called "being above board." Maybe you should try it for a change?

[Sports Guy]

Well I sure as heck woudn't say Dempsey is clueless just because I don't agree that Markakis deserves a GG. That would be as absurd as your statement that Dempsey cannot make an intelligent observation of a major league pitcher. I would just say I disagree with Dempsey and Palmer about Markakis but acknowledge they do know more than I do. Its called "being above board." Maybe you should try it for a change?

Did I say make that statement?

So basically, you think these guys are good when they have the same opinion as you do...but if they have a different opinion, you just disagree...Essentially, you just like to hear what you want to hear and run with it as if that makes them an expert because they agree with you.

LOL..Whatever...Its just how you roll.

[BRob51]

Well I sure as heck woudn't say Dempsey is clueless just because I don't agree that Markakis deserves a GG. That would be as absurd as your statement that Dempsey cannot make an intelligent observation of a major league pitcher. I would just say I disagree with Dempsey and Palmer about Markakis but acknowledge they do know more than I do. Its called "being above board." Maybe you should try it for a change?

You're getting former player and talent evaluater confused. Dempsey can make good observations and knows how to catch and call a game in the major leagues, or at least he did (the game has changed a lot over a relatively short amount of time). But, however, that does not make him a good evaluater of talent. There are definitely a large amount of former players who are good scouts, but at the same time, there are many players who wouldn't be able to hold down an associate scouting job.

[allstar1579]

Well I sure as heck woudn't say Dempsey is clueless just because I don't agree that Markakis deserves a GG. That would be as absurd as your statement that Dempsey cannot make an intelligent observation of a major league pitcher. I would just say I disagree with Dempsey and Palmer about Markakis but acknowledge they do know more than I do. Its called "being above board." Maybe you should try it for a change?

That's fair, but also in fairness not everyone who ever played the game would make a good manager, you can usually tell the ones that would though. Not everyone would make a good GM, or a good scout either. A lot of guys are dumb as rocks, but they could play baseball, and did it well. There is NOTHING wrong with that, but if everyone who ever played would make a good GM or scout or manager there would be a lot more candidates for those positions.

There are a lot of guys in announcing that know the game, but don't know a lot about other areas OF the game and they try to come off as an expert. Rob Dibble comes to mind. I actually like Dibble, and I think he does know the game well, but what he's trying to say and what actually comes out don't seem to match up a lot lately. I think Dempsey is in that mold too, and he is too much of a homer when it comes to players.

Jake has some pluses and minuses but not enough that make him a head and shoulders selection over Matusz like you prefer. It's fine if you are saying you personally prefer him over Brian, but you are trying to talk up Jake and talk down Brian to make your point.

[Carroll County]

Old #5 Fan:

I have a question for you. If you had to start from scratch and could keep only one position player and one pitcher on our current team, who would they be?

[Old#5fan]

Did I say make that statement?

So basically, you think these guys are good when they have the same opinion as you do...but if they have a different opinion, you just disagree...Essentially, you just like to hear what you want to hear and run with it as if that makes them an expert because they agree with you.

LOL..Whatever...Its just how you roll.

No, thats not it at all. What I trying to tell you is don't you see the foolishness in someone who is a casual fan stating that Rick Dempsey is clueless when it comes to judging a young major league pitcher? You offer no support to that statement whatsover, as to what experience you have that would enable you to state this with even an iota of certainty?

I on the other hand am showing that Dempsey supports my belief and it apparently makes you mad because it runs counter to your apparent infallible (in your estimation anyway) take on Arrieta. I also sometimes disagree with Dempsey as well as in his take on Markakis and a GG. Nevertheless I don't think he is clueless nor would it be appropriate for me to state it. Another poster has also called you to task for this statement. You are wrong and you know it in making such an unfounded statement.