Tillman vs Bergesen

[QBsILLEST1]

I think people undersell Bergesen's upside. Yes,Tillman has more, but the upside of Bergy isn't 200 IP, 4.50 ERA, it's 200 IP, 3.75 ERA. 200 IP, 4.50 ERA is not far from Bergy's midpoint IMO.

I'm in no hurry to trade either one.

I disagree, Bergy to me isn't a 3.75 pitcher. I'd honestly be happy to get a 4.50 ERA from him going forward. Just because he threw to a 3.45 ERA for a100+ IP in 09 doesn't mean that is his upside, nor should it indicate that a 3.75 ERA is his upside. What pitchers do you know of have a comparable arsenal to him that are 3.75 ERA guys?

[weams]

weams, the problem with the Curt Schilling deal was not that we gave him up... it's that we gave him AND Finley up for a 1-hit-wonder who completely flopped.

Would you have been disappointed if we had traded Curt Schilling straight up for a future Hall of Famer?

I know Tillman has the potential to be talented one day but our depth at young talented SP gives us the option to acquire young talented players at other more necessary positions.

1 No..but he was not. And we will not get a future hall of famer for Chris Tillman's current value.

2.So, trade someone without Tillman's 1A upside.

It really is all about that. You won't get much for Chris without one of those devastating packages, and I really don't care if we waste his current value seeing if he can be Jim Palmer lite.

[gman2388]

Not to defend Trea but your post is out there too.

I mean...there sure seems to be a lot of absurdity in the post to which I was referring. Tillman got shelled "because he wouldn't pitch like the O's wanted him to"? A) That, right there, is the reason--really? He's going to attribute the struggles of a young rookie SP to that? And B) Do we have any evidence of this? Did I miss something? Or is this just Trea molding facts to fit his theories, as usual, instead of changing theories to fit facts?

I also think it's bizarre that Trea seems to have a problem with the way Tillman has pitched at AAA, where he's pretty much been excellent. But whatever.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is a classic Trea move, and it's all over his post. That's probably what I should have stuck with addressing. But I also don't like the pop psychology of questioning Tillman's willingness to learn/respond to instruction, nor the way he continuously attributes sophisticated things to one sole cause, especially one that is usually barely relevant in the first place.

[Arthur_Bryant]

You won't get much for Chris without one of those devastating packages, and I really don;t care if we waste his current value seeing if he can be Jim Palmer lite.

Yes. The premise of the original question was "Let's say the trade value to these 2 were equal." Which is fair enough for the purposes of discussion.

But in reality, they don't have the same trade value. Bergesen at this point should have significantly more trade value than Tillman, who at this point probably isn't going to bring back a whole lot. But that could change in a hurry next season.

[Art Wing]

It's a good question but I'd keep Tillman. Better stuff and higher upside.

[RichmondVA Orio]

I voted for Bergenson to be traded.

I think it is pretty equal.

However, Bergenson's mechanics look more violent. Tillman looks fluid out there.

Deciding factor: Bergenson higher injury risk.

[sangar]

I mean...there sure seems to be a lot of absurdity in the post to which I was referring. Tillman got shelled "because he wouldn't pitch like the O's wanted him to"? A) That, right there, is the reason--really? He's going to attribute the struggles of a young rookie SP to that? And B) Do we have any evidence of this? Did I miss something? Or is this just Trea molding facts to fit his theories, as usual, instead of changing theories to fit facts?

I also think it's bizarre that Trea seems to have a problem with the way Tillman has pitched at AAA, where he's pretty much been excellent. But whatever.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is a classic Trea move, and it's all over his post. That's probably what I should have stuck with addressing. But I also don't like the pop psychology of questioning Tillman's willingness to learn/respond to instruction, nor the way he continuously attributes sophisticated things to one sole cause, especially one that is usually barely relevant in the first place.

I really shouldn't have said anything to you about this as I am not the board policeman and have no desire to engage in a discusssion of JTrea's methods.

'Pop psychology' is not inherently incorrect. I have seen this particular situation discussed by many well respected posters and it seems to be generally accepted as valid.

He more commonly uses 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' but again, this does not invalidate his opinions.

I am a scientist but one does not need to be to understand that one simple cause will often have a myriad of complicated results. If you don't believe this just think about your wife/girlfriend for two seconds.

[gman2388]

I really shouldn't have said anything to you about this as I am not the board policeman and have no desire to engage in a discusssion of JTrea's methods.

'Pop psychology' is not inherently incorrect. I have seen this particular situation discussed by many well respected posters and it seems to be generally accepted as valid.

He more commonly uses 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' but again, this does not invalidate his opinions.

I am a scientist but one does not need to be to understand that one simple cause will often have a myriad of complicated results. If you don't believe this just think about your wife/girlfriend for two seconds.

Well yeah, I'd rather discuss his methods less and the content more, I'm with you on that.

Sure one simple cause can have many complicated results. But a complicated result most likely has many, many causes, not just one, but unfortunately it's human nature to want to ascribe it to just one thing.

Curious about why you say that employing "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" does not invalidate his opinions. Obviously, him using that at times does not render everything else he says to be incorrect, but in the specific times when it is used, it represents fallacious reasoning, no?

[weams]

Well yeah, I'd rather discuss his methods less and the content more, I'm with you on that.

Sure one simple cause can have many complicated results. But a complicated result most likely has many, many causes, not just one, but unfortunately it's human nature to want to ascribe it to just one thing.

Curious about why you say that employing "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" does not invalidate his opinions. Obviously, him using that at times does not render everything else he says to be incorrect, but in the specific times when it is used, it represents fallacious reasoning, no?

It gets the argument thrown out in a court of law. But, really, let's not talk about him. Ok?

[JTrea81]

I mean...there sure seems to be a lot of absurdity in the post to which I was referring. Tillman got shelled "because he wouldn't pitch like the O's wanted him to"? A) That, right there, is the reason--really? He's going to attribute the struggles of a young rookie SP to that? And B) Do we have any evidence of this? Did I miss something? Or is this just Trea molding facts to fit his theories, as usual, instead of changing theories to fit facts?

I also think it's bizarre that Trea seems to have a problem with the way Tillman has pitched at AAA, where he's pretty much been excellent. But whatever.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is a classic Trea move, and it's all over his post. That's probably what I should have stuck with addressing. But I also don't like the pop psychology of questioning Tillman's willingness to learn/respond to instruction, nor the way he continuously attributes sophisticated things to one sole cause, especially one that is usually barely relevant in the first place.

Case in point:

Obviously I was disappointed [going to Triple-A], but I think I was more stubborn on the things they told me to work on, like fastball command," Tillman said. "I would get 0-2 on a hitter and would try to put a guy away with a good fastball instead of going to what I normally go to. So, I was trying to do too much of what they were trying to tell me to do, instead of going out there and pitching."

The young right-hander struggled mightily in his first three Triple-A starts before going 5-1 in his last seven outings, including April 28's complete-game no-hitter.

"I wanted to stick to [fastball command], nothing else, because I wanted to get [to the Major Leagues] sooner rather than later," Tillman said. "I took a step backwards, once I saw what it did to me, [and] then I was able to mix everything in and go from there."

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100531&content_id=10643146&vkey=news_bal&fext=.jsp&c_id=bal

So in otherwords he stopped focusing on what the Orioles wanted him to focus on, and got the results he was looking for a the AAA level by going back to throwing the ball up in the zone for strikeouts, something he can't get away with in the majors, and when he was called up, he got shelled immediately due to poor fastball command.

When Bergesen was sent down, he worked on exactly what he needed to and wasn't focused on wins at the AAA level. He got his mechanics back in sync and when he was called up for the second and final time in July, he was a different pitcher, and back to the Bergesen of 2009.

Tillman looked like the same guy that had been shelled in the majors all the way up until his last start when he finally listened to the Orioles coaches.

[weams]

Tillman is 22 and is in California training with Matusz all winter. I would like to see the results. In an Oriole uniform.

[sangar]

Well yeah, I'd rather discuss his methods less and the content more, I'm with you on that.

Sure one simple cause can have many complicated results. But a complicated result most likely has many, many causes, not just one, but unfortunately it's human nature to want to ascribe it to just one thing.

Curious about why you say that employing "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" does not invalidate his opinions. Obviously, him using that at times does not render everything else he says to be incorrect, but in the specific times when it is used, it represents fallacious reasoning, no?

Perhaps, but a mathemetician friend of mine can mathematically prove that 2+2=1, 2+2=4, and 2+2=5 and math is the purest form of logic. Sometimes logic itself is illogical. The path one chooses to reach a conclusion cannot be used as proof the conclusion is incorrect.

[gman2388]

Case in point:

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100531&content_id=10643146&vkey=news_bal&fext=.jsp&c_id=bal

So in otherwords he stopped focusing on what the Orioles wanted him to focus on, and got the results he was looking for a the AAA level by going back to throwing the ball up in the zone for strikeouts, something he can't get away with in the majors, and when he was called up, he got shelled immediately due to poor fastball command.

When Bergesen was sent down, he worked on exactly what he needed to and wasn't focused on wins at the AAA level. He got his mechanics back in sync and when he was called up for the second and final time in July, he was a different pitcher, and back to the Bergesen of 2009.

Tillman looked like the same guy that had been shelled in the majors all the way up until his last start when he finally listened to the Orioles coaches.

This is something, I guess. But why does "I was trying to do too much of what they were trying to tell me to do" mean he wasn't listening to his instructors? Doesn't it sound more like he was (in his mind at least) overthinking?

I'd also like to temper the notion that he's been 'shelled.' He has a 5.22 ML xFIP. Bad, yes, but not mind-boggingly atrocious.

And there you go, again, saying that he pitched poorly "because of poor fastball command." Do you ever acknowledge that multiple factors contribute to things like poor performance?

[SrMeowMeow]

Perhaps, but a mathemetician friend of mine can mathematically prove that 2+2=1, 2+2=4, and 2+2=5 and math is the purest form of logic. Sometimes logic itself is illogical. The path one chooses to reach a conclusion cannot be used as proof the conclusion is incorrect.

Well, no, you can't actually prove that.

[gman2388]

Perhaps, but a mathemetician friend of mine can mathematically prove that 2+2=1, 2+2=4, and 2+2=5 and math is the purest form of logic. Sometimes logic itself is illogical. The path one chooses to reach a conclusion cannot be used as proof the conclusion is incorrect.

I think I see where you're going w/ that last sentence (or, at least, to address it further would diverge too far from baseball), but wouldn't one pretty much always want to stick with what are all-but-universally considered superior forms of logic? Or at least absent extraordinary circumstances?