|
Post by redskoolaiddrinker on May 26, 2015 21:22:01 GMT -5
Misguided, no. Regression, yes. He is a reliever. Again, there is literally nothing that suggests he can only be a reliever at this point in his career. I hate to break it to you, but just because you believe something doesn't make it true. What he said. ^
|
|
|
Post by tiberius3108 on May 26, 2015 23:17:13 GMT -5
3.46 I'll start believing he's destined for relief when he's over 4.50 for the season. 5.88 in May means he's regressing, not progressing. 3.46 is nice overall to this point, but that includes May's 1.04. I've watched him. He can't get through the opposition's lineup twice before they start to torch him now. He may be a decent bullpen arm after all. First let me say I think Disco is at best a back end starter, now with that said...Greg Maddux first two seasons in the MLB he had a 5.52 and a 5.61 era, Randy Johnson's first two seasons were 4.82 and 4.40 Jose Rijo's first three were 3.63, 4.65, 5.90...my point, I don't think you can realistically say someone isn't a starter at this level after such a small sample size.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on May 27, 2015 13:11:23 GMT -5
Insane thread. The Reds have plenty of starting pitching prospects.
DeSclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias will all be MLB starting pitchers going forward, whether you like it or not. Moscot, Travieso, and Romano should join them eventually. Amir Garrett should too.
Nick Howard, Robert Stephenson, and Jonathan Crawford all belong under scrutiny, but it's way too early to give up on any of them. Stephenson is only 22, and has great stuff if he can ever throw it for strikes. Homer Bailey only started to become a decent MLB pitcher around age 24, for a comparison. Stephenson isn't Mike Leake as far as being MLB ready at a very young age, but he also has a better arm than Leake, which is why he's been a top prospect for so long.
Raisel Iglesias, this season, has only seemed - to me - to have trouble with keeping his stuff effective late into games, a concern most people had after he had barely pitched in the past couple of years. They need to build up his arm strength and his inning totals, but I have seen absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be a starter in the future. He has plenty of good pitches to do it. His performance so far has only made me more convinced that he has a future as a successful starting pitcher.
DeSclafani has had some good starts. He's had some bad starts. Leake and Cueto have had some good starts and bad starts as veterans. Arroyo always had some bad starts in his season. It's crazy to give up on DeSclafani as a starter over hickups that haven't even been enough to disrupt promising season. Nobody with a 3.46 ERA deserves to be removed from a rotation.
The pundits knew DeSclafani would be a reliever? The pundits knew he could be a reliever - most starters could be relievers - although as far as I can tell most have been pleasantly surprised by DeSclafani's performance as a MLB starter. If a pundit is unwilling to reevaluate based on performance... wow. If they hate the player no matter what they're more of a troll than a pundit. The pundits also knew Mat Latos would be excellent, Joey Votto would never recover, Mesoraco would be an impact player in 2015, and Alfredo Simon would face significant regression.
VTReds asks if DeSclafani's April numbers count? Clearly not, fair evaluation means tossing out good performance and focusing only on bad ones. That's Reds evaluation 101.
Mike Leake is going through rough times, I hope you're arguing that it means he's not a MLB starter. After all, a MLB starter is great every time out, every week of his career. Clearly Leake is now a reliever. Votto hasn't done as well lately as he did at the start of the season, perhaps it's a sign that the successful part of his career is now over.
Regarding drafting under-appreciated relievers who might make starters, the Reds should 'indulge in deeper thought'? Huh? That's exactly what they're doing, ignoring the face value of 'this guy is a reliever, this guy is a starter' and indulging in different thought to find undervalued arms. They're trying to gain a market advantage, rather than make an old school safe pick. Whether or not it has/will been successful is one thing, but it's crazy to accuse them of not thinking or planning. If you object you should only demand that they indulge in less deep thought. It's a clever plan or experiment, even if you don't approve. If it pays off other teams will likely copy.
That outlook or attempt at gaining a market advantage has already resulted in Cingrani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias at the major league level... in addition to Nick Howard. Cingrani has developed shoulder problems (which can happen to anybody, regardless of a starter/reliever background) but he was reluctant to make any changes (continued reliance on fastball despite advice to develop additional pitches). Lorenzen has already made major adjustments and developments just to get here, and I doubt he's going to give up on trying to improve anytime soon... it's very early to suggest that Cingrani and Lorenzen are comparable (at least in any bad way). As far as whether or not the Reds' plan of turning undervalued relievers into successful MLB starters is a good idea or bad idea, we're only now seeing the first glimpses of a long term project/investment, and I think it's way too early to evaluate its success or failure. So far there's barely a single point of reference in successful big leaguer Tony Cingrani, who some argue should be in the rotation while simultaneously arguing that he represents a failure of the whole experiment.
It's a transition year for the Reds. Transitioning into a new group of young starting pitchers, like rookies DeSclafani, Iglesias, Lorenzen, and inevitably Moscot. Those guys should all have ups and downs during their first season in MLB, we can only hope that it makes them better prepared for success in 2016 and beyond. But it's insane to write of any of their careers in the rotation based on a bad start or even a bad month. What matter is that those guys continue to improve, not that they win or take the team to the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by walstib on May 27, 2015 16:16:45 GMT -5
What is his FIP, his WHIP, his ERA+, his BA with greater than 50+ blonds in section 104 on Tuesday night games in May when his ERA has been 5.88? Do his April numbers not count? I acknowledged his April numbers, but HE IS REGRESSING. He is not sustaining his April numbers, nor getting better. That is my point. The league catches up to rookie pitchers, especially mediocre ones. He's at best a reliever.
|
|
|
Post by walstib on May 27, 2015 16:28:28 GMT -5
Insane thread. The Reds have plenty of starting pitching prospects. DeSclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias will all be MLB starting pitchers going forward, whether you like it or not. Moscot, Travieso, and Romano should join them eventually. Amir Garrett should too. Nick Howard, Robert Stephenson, and Jonathan Crawford all belong under scrutiny, but it's way too early to give up on any of them. Stephenson is only 22, and has great stuff if he can ever throw it for strikes. Homer Bailey only started to become a decent MLB pitcher around age 24, for a comparison. Stephenson isn't Mike Leake as far as being MLB ready at a very young age, but he also has a better arm than Leake, which is why he's been a top prospect for so long. Raisel Iglesias, this season, has only seemed - to me - to have trouble with keeping his stuff effective late into games, a concern most people had after he had barely pitched in the past couple of years. They need to build up his arm strength and his inning totals, but I have seen absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be a starter in the future. He has plenty of good pitches to do it. His performance so far has only made me more convinced that he has a future as a successful starting pitcher. DeSclafani has had some good starts. He's had some bad starts. Leake and Cueto have had some good starts and bad starts as veterans. Arroyo always had some bad starts in his season. It's crazy to give up on DeSclafani as a starter over hickups that haven't even been enough to disrupt promising season. Nobody with a 3.46 ERA deserves to be removed from a rotation. The pundits knew DeSclafani would be a reliever? The pundits knew he could be a reliever - most starters could be relievers - although as far as I can tell most have been pleasantly surprised by DeSclafani's performance as a MLB starter. If a pundit is unwilling to reevaluate based on performance... wow. If they hate the player no matter what they're more of a troll than a pundit. The pundits also knew Mat Latos would be excellent, Joey Votto would never recover, Mesoraco would be an impact player in 2015, and Alfredo Simon would face significant regression. VTReds asks if DeSclafani's April numbers count? Clearly not, fair evaluation means tossing out good performance and focusing only on bad ones. That's Reds evaluation 101. Mike Leake is going through rough times, I hope you're arguing that it means he's not a MLB starter. After all, a MLB starter is great every time out, every week of his career. Clearly Leake is now a reliever. Votto hasn't done as well lately as he did at the start of the season, perhaps it's a sign that the successful part of his career is now over. Regarding drafting under-appreciated relievers who might make starters, the Reds should 'indulge in deeper thought'? Huh? That's exactly what they're doing, ignoring the face value of 'this guy is a reliever, this guy is a starter' and indulging in different thought to find undervalued arms. They're trying to gain a market advantage, rather than make an old school safe pick. Whether or not it has/will been successful is one thing, but it's crazy to accuse them of not thinking or planning. If you object you should only demand that they indulge in less deep thought. It's a clever plan or experiment, even if you don't approve. If it pays off other teams will likely copy. That outlook or attempt at gaining a market advantage has already resulted in Cingrani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias at the major league level... in addition to Nick Howard. Cingrani has developed shoulder problems (which can happen to anybody, regardless of a starter/reliever background) but he was reluctant to make any changes (continued reliance on fastball despite advice to develop additional pitches). Lorenzen has already made major adjustments and developments just to get here, and I doubt he's going to give up on trying to improve anytime soon... it's very early to suggest that Cingrani and Lorenzen are comparable (at least in any bad way). As far as whether or not the Reds' plan of turning undervalued relievers into successful MLB starters is a good idea or bad idea, we're only now seeing the first glimpses of a long term project/investment, and I think it's way too early to evaluate its success or failure. So far there's barely a single point of reference in successful big leaguer Tony Cingrani, who some argue should be in the rotation while simultaneously arguing that he represents a failure of the whole experiment. It's a transition year for the Reds. Transitioning into a new group of young starting pitchers, like rookies DeSclafani, Iglesias, Lorenzen, and inevitably Moscot. Those guys should all have ups and downs during their first season in MLB, we can only hope that it makes them better prepared for success in 2016 and beyond. But it's insane to write of any of their careers in the rotation based on a bad start or even a bad month. What matter is that those guys continue to improve, not that they win or take the team to the playoffs. If this thread is so "insane" why do you take the time to write a 5,000 word rebuttal? Don't take offense, but I don't read the dissertations that some of you write. I like concise, well written, coherent thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by vtreds22 on May 27, 2015 17:13:05 GMT -5
Do his April numbers not count? I acknowledged his April numbers, but HE IS REGRESSING. He is not sustaining his April numbers, nor getting better. That is my point. The league catches up to rookie pitchers, especially mediocre ones. He's at best a reliever. There are countless examples of rookie pitchers whose numbers fluctuated from month to month. A couple of bad starts doesn't necessarily mean he's regressed and that he's incapable of being a starter. It may simply mean he had a couple of bad outings. Every pitcher in ML history has had bad stretches in their careers. The sample size is way too small to draw any sort of definitive conclusions. I'm not sure why you're arguing it. You're smarter than that.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on May 27, 2015 17:14:22 GMT -5
Insane thread. The Reds have plenty of starting pitching prospects. DeSclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias will all be MLB starting pitchers going forward, whether you like it or not. Moscot, Travieso, and Romano should join them eventually. Amir Garrett should too. Nick Howard, Robert Stephenson, and Jonathan Crawford all belong under scrutiny, but it's way too early to give up on any of them. Stephenson is only 22, and has great stuff if he can ever throw it for strikes. Homer Bailey only started to become a decent MLB pitcher around age 24, for a comparison. Stephenson isn't Mike Leake as far as being MLB ready at a very young age, but he also has a better arm than Leake, which is why he's been a top prospect for so long. Raisel Iglesias, this season, has only seemed - to me - to have trouble with keeping his stuff effective late into games, a concern most people had after he had barely pitched in the past couple of years. They need to build up his arm strength and his inning totals, but I have seen absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be a starter in the future. He has plenty of good pitches to do it. His performance so far has only made me more convinced that he has a future as a successful starting pitcher. DeSclafani has had some good starts. He's had some bad starts. Leake and Cueto have had some good starts and bad starts as veterans. Arroyo always had some bad starts in his season. It's crazy to give up on DeSclafani as a starter over hickups that haven't even been enough to disrupt promising season. Nobody with a 3.46 ERA deserves to be removed from a rotation. The pundits knew DeSclafani would be a reliever? The pundits knew he could be a reliever - most starters could be relievers - although as far as I can tell most have been pleasantly surprised by DeSclafani's performance as a MLB starter. If a pundit is unwilling to reevaluate based on performance... wow. If they hate the player no matter what they're more of a troll than a pundit. The pundits also knew Mat Latos would be excellent, Joey Votto would never recover, Mesoraco would be an impact player in 2015, and Alfredo Simon would face significant regression. VTReds asks if DeSclafani's April numbers count? Clearly not, fair evaluation means tossing out good performance and focusing only on bad ones. That's Reds evaluation 101. Mike Leake is going through rough times, I hope you're arguing that it means he's not a MLB starter. After all, a MLB starter is great every time out, every week of his career. Clearly Leake is now a reliever. Votto hasn't done as well lately as he did at the start of the season, perhaps it's a sign that the successful part of his career is now over. Regarding drafting under-appreciated relievers who might make starters, the Reds should 'indulge in deeper thought'? Huh? That's exactly what they're doing, ignoring the face value of 'this guy is a reliever, this guy is a starter' and indulging in different thought to find undervalued arms. They're trying to gain a market advantage, rather than make an old school safe pick. Whether or not it has/will been successful is one thing, but it's crazy to accuse them of not thinking or planning. If you object you should only demand that they indulge in less deep thought. It's a clever plan or experiment, even if you don't approve. If it pays off other teams will likely copy. That outlook or attempt at gaining a market advantage has already resulted in Cingrani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias at the major league level... in addition to Nick Howard. Cingrani has developed shoulder problems (which can happen to anybody, regardless of a starter/reliever background) but he was reluctant to make any changes (continued reliance on fastball despite advice to develop additional pitches). Lorenzen has already made major adjustments and developments just to get here, and I doubt he's going to give up on trying to improve anytime soon... it's very early to suggest that Cingrani and Lorenzen are comparable (at least in any bad way). As far as whether or not the Reds' plan of turning undervalued relievers into successful MLB starters is a good idea or bad idea, we're only now seeing the first glimpses of a long term project/investment, and I think it's way too early to evaluate its success or failure. So far there's barely a single point of reference in successful big leaguer Tony Cingrani, who some argue should be in the rotation while simultaneously arguing that he represents a failure of the whole experiment. It's a transition year for the Reds. Transitioning into a new group of young starting pitchers, like rookies DeSclafani, Iglesias, Lorenzen, and inevitably Moscot. Those guys should all have ups and downs during their first season in MLB, we can only hope that it makes them better prepared for success in 2016 and beyond. But it's insane to write of any of their careers in the rotation based on a bad start or even a bad month. What matter is that those guys continue to improve, not that they win or take the team to the playoffs. If this thread is so "insane" why do you take the time to write a 5,000 word rebuttal? Don't take offense, but I don't read the dissertations that some of you write. I like concise, well written, coherent thoughts. Sorry, I admit, I wrote way too much. You asked questions and I provided answers, but they were far too complicated. I'll dumb it down. 1. The Reds have young starting pitchers today named DeSclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias. Soon they will have others named Moscot, Travieso, Romano, and Garrett. Eventually Stephenson, Howard, and Crawford may become Reds starters. 2. It's too early to determine the success rate of the Reds' plan to convert relievers into starting pitchers. 3. DeSclafani has pitched well. DeSclafani=Good. 3.46 ERA=good. Good starts count as much as bad ones. Simple three points. When you object the clarification is above.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on May 27, 2015 17:30:31 GMT -5
I acknowledged his April numbers, but HE IS REGRESSING. He is not sustaining his April numbers, nor getting better. That is my point. The league catches up to rookie pitchers, especially mediocre ones. He's at best a reliever. There are countless examples of rookie pitchers whose numbers fluctuated from month to month. A couple of bad starts doesn't necessarily mean he's regressed and that he's incapable of being a starter. He may simply mean he had a couple of bad outings. Every pitcher in ML history has had bad stretches in their careers. The sample size is way too small to draw any sort of definitive conclusions. When players are this inexperienced, the idea of regression loses its meaning. Usually, it implies a return to an established pattern, but none of these players have established any pattern at this point... In the cases of DeSclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias, I think you have to look at the mix of pitches, at the reasons for both the successes and the setbacks, rather than at the usual statistics. By this measure, all three are clearly starting pitchers. Iglesias is a bit of a concern, because he's running up his pitch counts early and has some difficulty putting hitters away, but not to the point where you would consign his pitch repertoire to the bullpen... I think this uncertainty makes them three of the most interesting players on the team...
|
|
|
Post by redskoolaiddrinker on May 27, 2015 21:08:16 GMT -5
There are countless examples of rookie pitchers whose numbers fluctuated from month to month. A couple of bad starts doesn't necessarily mean he's regressed and that he's incapable of being a starter. He may simply mean he had a couple of bad outings. Every pitcher in ML history has had bad stretches in their careers. The sample size is way too small to draw any sort of definitive conclusions. When players are this inexperienced, the idea of regression loses its meaning. Usually, it implies a return to an established pattern, but none of these players have established any pattern at this point... In the cases of DeSclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias, I think you have to look at the mix of pitches, at the reasons for both the successes and the setbacks, rather than at the usual statistics. By this measure, all three are clearly starting pitchers. Iglesias is a bit of a concern, because he's running up his pitch counts early and has some difficulty putting hitters away, but not to the point where you would consign his pitch repertoire to the bullpen... I think this uncertainty makes them three of the most interesting players on the team... I'm really glad there are some smart, articulate people on here. Well said!
|
|
|
Post by kycatscinnreds on May 27, 2015 22:00:50 GMT -5
Fanman must really hate this season. Hes having to reach back in his vault to defend this organization
|
|
|
Post by quantumfootball on May 27, 2015 23:51:47 GMT -5
I think that Iglesias and DeSclafani have so far shown signs that they'll be good starters in the future, but Lorenzen reminds me too much of Sam Lecure.
|
|
|
Post by Yossarian on May 28, 2015 0:02:46 GMT -5
I think that Iglesias and DeSclafani have so far shown signs that they'll be good starters in the future, but Lorenzen reminds me too much of Sam Lecure. Plus 5-7 mph on the fastball.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on May 28, 2015 7:01:18 GMT -5
When players are this inexperienced, the idea of regression loses its meaning. Usually, it implies a return to an established pattern, but none of these players have established any pattern at this point... In the cases of DeSclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias, I think you have to look at the mix of pitches, at the reasons for both the successes and the setbacks, rather than at the usual statistics. By this measure, all three are clearly starting pitchers. Iglesias is a bit of a concern, because he's running up his pitch counts early and has some difficulty putting hitters away, but not to the point where you would consign his pitch repertoire to the bullpen... I think this uncertainty makes them three of the most interesting players on the team... I'm really glad there are some smart, articulate people on here. Well said! Yeah, VT's okay, but Thomas feeds him most of his good lines...
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on May 28, 2015 7:04:59 GMT -5
I think that Iglesias and DeSclafani have so far shown signs that they'll be good starters in the future, but Lorenzen reminds me too much of Sam Lecure. Plus 5-7 mph on the fastball. LeCure had some good starts, but he always had to keep the ball at the bottom of the strike zone. The Lord smiles more on Lorenzen's fastball...
|
|
|
Post by crashdavissports on May 28, 2015 13:36:14 GMT -5
If Marquis is a starter almost anyone in the league can be a starter, just depends on how long you want to see your starters ERA around 6+.
|
|