Matusz ROY Finish

[Frobby]

Agreed. I don't see how you can logically vote for Davis over Matusz with any other rationale than "his team was better." And that should not be a factor for ROY. Matusz beat Davis in every statistical category except W/L and ERA (and that category was fairly close).

Which are the two categories traditionally used to rank pitchers.

Look, I think we all need to acknowledge that more sophisticated stats aren't that universally known or recognized. I would have been absolutely stunned if Matusz had gotten more votes than Wade Davis.

Moreover, two years from now, nobody is going to remember who came in 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th in the ROY voting. Does anyone here remember where Tim Lincecum finished in 2007?

[TGO]

I'm pretty sure Austin Jackson had a higher WAR didn't he?

Per Fangraphs, yes. Per BB-Ref, no. They're using different calculations of WAR.

[TGO]

Which are the two categories traditionally used to rank pitchers.

Look, I think we all need to acknowledge that more sophisticated stats aren't that universally known or recognized. I would have been absolutely stunned if Matusz had gotten more votes than Wade Davis.

Moreover, two years from now, nobody is going to remember who came in 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th in the ROY voting. Does anyone here remember where Tim Lincecum finished in 2007?

I will give the voters ERA. But to still be rewarding a 12-10 pitcher any sort of points over a 10-12 pitcher in the year 2010 is just absolutely ludicrous. Besides, you don't need to get into xFIP and whatever else is so baffling to the voters. Strikeouts, walks, home runs, innings pitched - Matusz was better.

As for whether any of this matters, it obviously doesn't. I won't care tomorrow and won't remember next year. But there's not much else to talk about other than trade/FA speculation, which I know you dislike. Oh, and John Russell, who is so boring as to not deserve any discussion.

[Old#5fan]

I'm kind of surprised Matusz got any votes, to be honest. Not that I don't think he'll be better than most all of those guys on the list. I'm just surprised based on his very up and down year.

That is exactly how I feel and posted very similarly to this just a couple posts back and was instantly chewed out so bad by another poster here, it makes me seem as if I am not even fit to even be a member of the human race or have an opinion!

It amazes me what can happen if you dissent around here but it appears nobody is stating anything to you about your view which is 100% in agreement with mine!

Maybe now I shouldn't "get lost" like he suggested since an esteemed poster here shares my view? :scratchchinhmm:

[ShaneDawg85]

Lost in the thread, at least to some degree, is the fact that we actually had a player who even had a chance to win the award. Spare me any crap about, "Well the Orioles actually had players win the award." Irrelevant, I say. The Orioles haven't had a winner since 1989, and hadn't had anyone even pick up a single vote for the award since 2006. That's right, since 2006 not one of the many guys that have come up have even gotten a vote for the award. Not Brad Bergesen, Matt Wieters, Nolan Reimold, Jake Arrieta, nobody. Brian Matusz did.

Consider me one that is happy Brian was even recognized in any way shape or form for the season he had as a rookie. It's a testament to his potential, and the way he performed this season, especially the last two months, that Matusz even got any recognition on what was an atrocious Orioles team. I'm one that believes the coming season will see Brian Matusz reach a higher level of production than most of, if not potentially all of the players he was in competition with. Let this be a stepping stone for Brian that I am confident will be.

[OFFNY]

Just the fact that Matusz got any votes at all is a good thing.

Do I think that he should have gotten more votes ??? Sure.

Do I think the fact that he playes for the Orioles makes him slightly less respected by voters in general ??? Sure.

But ..... All that I care about is three things (four of you're an Oriole fan).

FANS OF MOST TEAMS

A. Making the playoffs

B. Making it to the World Series

C. Winning the World Series

*****************************

FANS OF THE ORIOLES (with the extra step)

A. A Winning Season

B. Making the playoffs

C. Making it to the World Series

D. Winning the World Series

The Giants won the World Series for the first time since 1951, and whatever individual awards they may or may not get will pale in comparison to their world championship.

The Rangers won the pennant and made it to the World Series for the first time in their 50-year franchise history (1961-2010), and whatever individual awards they may or may not get will pale in comparison to making it all the way to the World Series (especially having gone through the Yankees in the process).

I'm sure that Brian Matusz feels the same way. A winning season in 2011, and playoff berth(s) and pennant(s) in 2012 and beyond will more than vindicate his position in the 2010 Rookie of the Year voting.

.

[MrOrange82]

I'm kind of surprised Matusz got any votes, to be honest. Not that I don't think he'll be better than most all of those guys on the list. I'm just surprised based on his very up and down year.

Matusz's ERA was 3.64 from June 1st to the end of the season. He had 3 really bad starts in July that ballooned his ERA for that month, but he basically got stronger as the season progressed, and he was stellar in August and September.

[Old#5fan]

Lost in the thread, at least to some degree, is the fact that we actually had a player who even had a chance to win the award. Spare me any crap about, "Well the Orioles actually had players win the award." Irrelevant, I say. The Orioles haven't had a winner since 1989, and hadn't had anyone even pick up a single vote for the award since 2006. That's right, since 2006 not one of the many guys that have come up have even gotten a vote for the award. Not Brad Bergesen, Matt Wieters, Nolan Reimold, Jake Arrieta, nobody. Brian Matusz did.

Consider me one that is happy Brian was even recognized in any way shape or form for the season he had as a rookie. It's a testament to his potential, and the way he performed this season, especially the last two months, that Matusz even got any recognition on what was an atrocious Orioles team. I'm one that believes the coming season will see Brian Matusz reach a higher level of production than most of, if not potentially all of the players he was in competition with. Let this be a stepping stone for Brian that I am confident will be.

To me that is two things that are kind of sad (your take on this). One that the Orioles haven't had a great rookie performance in so, so, SO long, and two that anyone would lower their standards so much to think it any kind of a deal that Matusz got a tiny bit of consideration.

[Old#5fan]

Matusz's ERA was 3.64 from June 1st to the end of the season. He had 3 really bad starts in July that ballooned his ERA for that month, but he basically got stronger as the season progressed, and he was stellar in August and September.

Right, it is good he finished strong but they vote on the entire season which as has been pointed out was indeed a roller coaster performance.

[MrOrange82]

Right, it is good he finished strong but they vote on the entire season which as has been pointed out was indeed a roller coaster performance.

It wasn't a roller coaster. Unless the coaster in question simply climbs uphill at a relatively steady pace for its duration.

Wade Davis had a very similar season.

[Tony-OH]

To me that is two things that are kind of sad (your take on this). One that the Orioles haven't had a great rookie performance in so, so, SO long, and two that anyone would lower their standards so much to think it any kind of a deal that Matusz got a tiny bit of consideration.

These are the kind of posts that got you your time off. I see you have not learned your lesson. We can't teach old dogs new tricks so I guess it's time for you to find a new community.

[OFFNY]

It wasn't a roller coaster. Unless the coaster in question simply climbs uphill at a relatively steady pace for its duration.

Wade Davis had a very similar season.

Good point. Like Kevin Millwood, Matusz was clearly victimized (can't think of a more appropriate word) by a lack of run support, particularly early in the season. Instead of finishing at 10-12, Matusz easily could have won about 16 games this season. Millwood easily could have won 13 or 14 games instead of the 4 that he won. Oh well. Next year.

.

[Camden_yardbird]

Top four, top five, does it really matter? That really isn't anything all that oustanding from the top rated pitcher taken in his draft class.

Matusz last year was comparable to David price two years ago, both their first full year in MLB...

WTH are you talking about?

Matusz will get his due. If he is injury free for the majority of his career he will go on to be one of the Orioles best. That is, if they can keep him.

[SteveA]

Look, I think we all need to acknowledge that more sophisticated stats aren't that universally known or recognized. I would have been absolutely stunned if Matusz had gotten more votes than Wade Davis.

Per Fangraphs, yes. Per BB-Ref, no. They're using different calculations of WAR.

Perhaps this is part of the reason sophisticated stats "aren't that universally known or recognized". Not only do you have to learn what WAR is, what a "good" number is for it (llike .300 for batting average or .800 for OPS or whatever), and get a feel for how to apply it, but apparently it differs depending on where you find it. Hey, I realize fully why W-L record, batting average, and fielding percentage suck as stats. But at least they don't change depending on where you get them.

I've seen plenty of good discussions on here, especially in terms of trying to determine whether a player will be worth it over the lifetime of a contract, that use WAR to make their point. But until today I always assumed that WAR wasn't a moving target... once the season was over I thought you knew what a guy's WAR that season was and could discuss accordingly. Now in the middle of a rookie of the year thread I learn that isn't even true, it depends on where you go to get the stat?

[MrOrange82]

Good point. Like Kevin Millwood, Matusz was clearly victimized (can't think of a more appropriate word) by a lack of run support, particularly early in the season. Instead of finishing at 10-12, Matusz easily could have won about 16 games this season. Millwwod easily could have won 13 or 14 games instead of the 4 that he won. Oh well. Next year.

.

At one point during the season I did the math on what Matusz's ERA would have been without all the runs charged to him thanks to the bullpen's failure to keep inherited runners from scoring, and the difference was striking.

Another interesting comparison: even if someone wants to characterize Matusz's season as a roller coaster, ups and downs are intrinsically tied to baseball. Austin Jackson, for example, recorded monthly batting averages of .364, .297, .253, .314, .277, and .254...of course, no one's calling his season a roller coaster, or arguing that his inconsistency undercuts the sum value of his rookie season.