Tillman vs Bergesen

[Sports Guy]

I don't think Bergesen was hurt, he just wasn't in sync after starting spring training late. I think you point about him falling back in June and July after a pretty solid May is well taken, but I still have the feeling that he just took a long time to get his bearings.

Well, we probably will see next year. I'm pretty sure Bergy won't be traded, and I'm pretty sure he won't be filming any commercials this winter.

Why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Is this just a situation where you really like the guy, want him to succeed and are running with that emotion?

[mweb]

I don't think Bergesen was hurt, he just wasn't in sync after starting spring training late. I think you point about him falling back in June and July after a pretty solid May is well taken, but I still have the feeling that he just took a long time to get his bearings.

Well, we probably will see next year. I'm pretty sure Bergy won't be traded, and I'm pretty sure he won't be filming any commercials this winter.

But it's also a point he wouldn't make if it didn't suit his argument since he typically wouldn't say a month is very good where a guy had a 1.9 K/9 rate, a low BABIP, an FIP around 5, and produced a league average or so ERA.

Ultimately, people can break his season down in multiple ways, and how each person decides to do will often be influenced by how much they like him as evidenced by this thread. And I'm not saying I'm innocent of this either.

I do agree with your point though, that it's less about him still being hurt at the time and more about him not having much of a spring training and then seemingly losing his confidence after his early problems.

[Sports Guy]

But it's also a point he wouldn't make if it didn't suit his argument since he typically wouldn't say a month is very good where a guy had a 1.9 K/9 rate, a low BABIP, an FIP around 5, and produced a league average or so ERA.

Ultimately, people can break his season down in multiple ways, and how each person decides to do will often be influenced by how much they like him as evidenced by this thread. And I'm not saying I'm innocent of this either.

I do agree with your point though, that it's less about him still being hurt at the time and more about him not having much of a spring training and then seemingly losing his confidence after his early problems.

I just looked at ERA...Either way, he wasn't just bad in the first month of the season...he was bad for the first 4 months of the season.

To blame the injury on that is bs. If things were that bad for him, injury wise, he shouldn't have been pitching at all.

And if things were so bad for him, how was he able to have some good starts?

I just think its a bunch of bs excuses for those who believe in him long term and don't want to "pidgeonhole" him as something that many of us believe he is...A back of the rotation starter who will eat innings.

[mweb]

I just looked at ERA...Either way, he wasn't just bad in the first month of the season...he was bad for the first 4 months of the season.

To blame the injury on that is bs. If things were that bad for him, injury wise, he shouldn't have been pitching at all.

And if things were so bad for him, how was he able to have some good starts?

I just think its a bunch of bs excuses for those who believe in him long term and don't want to "pidgeonhole" him as something that many of us believe he is...A back of the rotation starter who will eat innings.

I'm not totally blaming it on the injury, I'm simply saying it should be factored in, and to say it shouldn't, if that's what you're saying, shows your bias here at least as much as the bias you are claiming others have.

You are right that like I just said, people will use or deny excuses based on their bias, and neither of us should deny doing so at times.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not totally blaming it on the injury, I'm simply saying it should be factored in, and to say it shouldn't, if that's what you're saying, shows your bias here at least as much as the bias you are claiming others have.

You are right that like I just said, people will use or deny excuses based on their bias, and neither of us should deny doing so at times.

I never said you did..you are piggybacking a conversation I was having with someone else...So, my posts are based on those things.

And I do agree it should be factored in somewhat..Hell, I remember writing a post about that on the board during the season.

But I also think he is also a league average-ish starter and not some 4ish ERA guy. So, while I am sure his injury did hurt certain aspects of things on some level, its his inconsistent talent that hurt him more.

[mweb]

I never said you did..you are piggybacking a conversation I was having with someone else...So, my posts are based on those things.

And I do agree it should be factored in somewhat..Hell, I remember writing a post about that on the board during the season.

But I also think he is also a league average-ish starter and not some 4ish ERA guy. So, while I am sure his injury did hurt certain aspects of things on some level, its his inconsistent talent that hurt him more.

Ok, well some of us think he'll be better than you do, and we have logical things to base that off just as you do. I'm not sure that we're that far apart though, you think he'll a #4 or so , I think he'll be a #3 or so. BTW, league average last year was about 4.25, so most of us aren't projecting him to be much more than what league average currently is. Anyway, obviously we'll see what happens.

[Frobby]

Why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt?

Is this just a situation where you really like the guy, want him to succeed and are running with that emotion?

Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Beyond that, I just think he's had long stretches of success in two consective years, and so when I try to evaluate the player's "upside," I factor in what the player has shown himself to be capable of when he is at his best. It's one thing to have a good outing, and it's something else to be extremely effective over a full third of a season two years in a row.

Remember, what's under discussion here is Bergy's upside, not his most probable scenario.

[Sports Guy]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Beyond that, I just think he's had long stretches of success in two consective years, and so when I try to evaluate the player's "upside," I factor in what the player has shown himself to be capable of when he is at his best. It's one thing to have a good outing, and it's something else to be extremely effective over a full third of a season two years in a row.

Remember, what's under discussion here is Bergy's upside, not his most probable scenario.

He also had a 4 months stretch of being poor this year.

[Moose Milligan]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

Beyond that, I just think he's had long stretches of success in two consective years, and so when I try to evaluate the player's "upside," I factor in what the player has shown himself to be capable of when he is at his best. It's one thing to have a good outing, and it's something else to be extremely effective over a full third of a season two years in a row.

Remember, what's under discussion here is Bergy's upside, not his most probable scenario.

This is true. I don't think many #5 starters can string those long stretches together like he's done.

I understand where SG is coming from though, it's not like the dude has electric stuff, wasn't a high draft pick and wasn't generally regarded as a stellar prospect.

Now...had he been a first round pick, I think SG might be singing a different tune. I mean, if Matusz had two bumpy years but had two significantly long stretches of success like that, we'd be singing his praises. So why not Berg? Because he doesn't have the lofty draft status, the sexy BA rankings and such. He wasn't a hyped prospect.

Berg doesn't have that hyped prospect pedigree status and I think that works against him when people talk about him on here and what he projects to be.

[Sports Guy]

This is true. I don't think many #5 starters can string those long stretches together like he's done.

I understand where SG is coming from though, it's not like the dude has electric stuff, wasn't a high draft pick and wasn't generally regarded as a stellar prospect.

Now...had he been a first round pick, I think SG might be singing a different tune. I mean, if Matusz had two bumpy years but had two significantly long stretches of success like that, we'd be singing his praises. So why not Berg? Because he doesn't have the lofty draft status, the sexy BA rankings and such. He wasn't a hyped prospect.

Berg doesn't have that hyped prospect pedigree status and I think that works against him when people talk about him on here and what he projects to be.

It would depend on his peripheral stats.

I wanted Bergy up here before many people on this board...I felt that he had nothing left to prove in the minors and was what he was going to be...Not a lot of K's, not a lot of walks, get grounders, etc...That's what he is.

[Frobby]

He also had a 4 months stretch of being poor this year.

Like I said, we're talking about upside here. Besides, as you recognized, he was pretty decent in May.

I don't think we are drastically apart on the probable scenario for Bergesen, though no doubt I am more optimistic than you are. I see him as a guy who will give you an ERA that is around league average but his IP/game will be above league average. Joe Blanton, more or less. But if things go well for him, he might be about where Guthrie has been in 3 of the last 4 years.

[Moose Milligan]

It would depend on his peripheral stats.

I wanted Bergy up here before many people on this board...I felt that he had nothing left to prove in the minors and was what he was going to be...Not a lot of K's, not a lot of walks, get grounders, etc...That's what he is.

That's fine, but have there ever been pitchers who have done well despite peripherals that might not be ideal?

[Frobby]

Here is a philosophical question:

Pitcher A has a 65% chance of being a league average starter. His chances of being a TOR starter, probably a no. 2, are 10%. His chances of washing out of the league in 2-3 years are 25%.

Pitcher B has a 35% chance of being a league average starter. His chances of being a TOR starter are 25%, say a 10% chance of being a no. 1 and a 15% chances of being a no. 2. His chances of washing out of the league in 2-3 years are 40%.

Assume you can get the same value for either in a trade. Which do you keep?

I'm not saying this is the exact case with Bergesen and Tillman, but it's close. Frankly, I don't give Tillman a 25% chance of being a TOR starter.

[Hank Scorpio]

I think Bergesen's willingness to mix in a four seamer along with his two seamer will help him out a lot. His changeup is probably never going to be much more than average, but I have seen some nice sliders from him from time to time.

Tillman has the raw ability to be a stud. I wouldn't be too anxious to trade either one.

[Hank Scorpio]

That's fine, but have there ever been pitchers who have done well despite peripherals that might not be ideal?