|
Post by vtreds22 on May 28, 2015 16:22:09 GMT -5
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... Well, he isn't good for anything else...
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on May 28, 2015 16:48:33 GMT -5
Yeah, VT's okay, but Thomas feeds him most of his good lines... Well, he isn't good for anything else... Not even doubting?
|
|
|
Post by walstib on May 28, 2015 17:57:35 GMT -5
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. You are an intelligent fellow, but you've missed my point. I've read what others, meaning the guys who breathe baseball for a living and they say our guys will ultimately be relievers. They say the one with possible starter potential may be Iglesias. I have watched Desclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias pitch. To date I concur. Let's agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on May 28, 2015 17:58:21 GMT -5
Yeah, VT's okay, but Thomas feeds him most of his good lines... Well, he isn't good for anything else... Virginia State Police still like him for a couple of things...
|
|
|
Post by walstib on May 28, 2015 18:05:33 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. 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. Nice attempt to patronize. I don't believe that the present set of youngsters are nothing but relievers. Why can't you accept a difference of opinion?
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on May 28, 2015 18:52:07 GMT -5
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. You are an intelligent fellow, but you've missed my point. I've read what others, meaning the guys who breathe baseball for a living and they say our guys will ultimately be relievers. They say the one with possible starter potential may be Iglesias. I have watched Desclafani, Lorenzen, and Iglesias pitch. To date I concur. Let's agree to disagree. I just have no idea what you've been reading. Absolutely no idea. I read everything I can find about these guys, especially by people who actually see them like Doug Gray. Maybe you've read things like 'if the rotation doesn't work out _______ would make a great arm out of the bullpen' and misinterpreting that as 'that player belongs in the bullpen'. What distinguishes Iglesias from the other starting pitching prospects? A strong repertoire of pitches... which is what many of the other starting prospects are still (correctly) in the minors to develop. Although it's way too soon to give up on any of those guys listed above as starters, and crazy to ignore them and argue that the team lacks starting pitching prospects. I'm not agreeing with someone who's so blatantly wrong, sorry
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on May 28, 2015 18:53:39 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. 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. Nice attempt to patronize. I don't believe that the present set of youngsters are nothing but relievers. Why can't you accept a difference of opinion? He's not patronizing you, he's just right and you're wrong. At least you're predicting an unlikely outcome way too early. Jeb Bush 2016.
|
|
|
Post by vtreds22 on May 28, 2015 20:36:10 GMT -5
Well, he isn't good for anything else... Virginia State Police still like him for a couple of things... They must appreciate him for keeping them aware of my driving habits, considering I recently got a speeding ticket. Oh wait, that's not what you meant...
|
|
|
Post by vtreds22 on May 28, 2015 20:39:36 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. 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. Nice attempt to patronize. I don't believe that the present set of youngsters are nothing but relievers. Why can't you accept a difference of opinion? Not patronizing. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. It's another to make blanket statements such as "he's a reliever" and "he's regressed" based on a one month sample size. As I said, one month, or roughly 25 innings, is way too small of a sample size to draw any sort of definitive conclusions. I mean, his April ERA was 1.04. Nobody realistically expected that to hold up over the full course of a season.
|
|
|
Post by redskoolaiddrinker on May 30, 2015 8:05:24 GMT -5
So since Disco's numbers were a downward trajectory, based on his last two starts does he have future starting pitcher in the all-star game in his future? No, but that's just as ridiculous as saying he's already proven he's destined to be a reliever.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on May 30, 2015 8:24:40 GMT -5
So since Disco's numbers were a downward trajectory, based on his last two starts does he have future starting pitcher in the all-star game in his future? Ian Desmond's comments on DeSclafani after last night's game. It's encouraging that he talks about more than one strategy: he didn't leave this first game thinking DeSclafani has only one way or limited options in getting people out... www.cincinnati.com/story/redsblog/2015/05/29/bryce-harper-singles-on-102-mph-fastball/28197219/Nationals shortstop Ian Desmond was impressed with the way Reds starter Anthony DeSclafani seemed to get stronger and increase his velocity as the game went on. "He had a lot of run on his fastball, he was pitching in a lot, using his slider down in the zone," Desmond said. "I think that's the first time we've seen him." DeSclafani faced the Nationals three times in relief last year while with the Marlins, but didn't face Desmond, who had two of the Nationals' eight hits off of the Reds rookie. "Any time you're facing a guy for the first time, you try to feel him out, see what his strategy is," Desmond said. "He's effective. He went out there and pitched. He threw firm, too. I think his velocity went up as he went on."
|
|
|
Post by walstib on May 31, 2015 14:08:29 GMT -5
Nice attempt to patronize. I don't believe that the present set of youngsters are nothing but relievers. Why can't you accept a difference of opinion? Not patronizing. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. It's another to make blanket statements such as "he's a reliever" and "he's regressed" based on a one month sample size. As I said, one month, or roughly 25 innings, is way too small of a sample size to draw any sort of definitive conclusions. I mean, his April ERA was 1.04. Nobody realistically expected that to hold up over the full course of a season. He's ultimately a reliever. That's my belief. It's not based on his April or May stats. If I am wrong, and I have been on many occasions, then big deal. I'd really like Lorenzon, Iglesias and Desclafani to work out as starters, but I think this is another instance where the FO tries to get starters on the cheap. Again, just my opinion. No need for you guys to be bent out of shape because our opinions might differ. Why are some of guys so irrepressible? I think I know why. I admire your passion for the Reds. Mine goes back to June 21, 1964. By the way I'll be in Philly on Wednesday, Desclafani is pitchig. I'll let you know what I think. Take care.
|
|
|
Post by walstib on May 31, 2015 14:22:00 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... Many have missed my opening comment in this thread "...I believe all will ultimately be bullpen arms. The Reds have NO starter prospects." This belief is irrespective of April, May or future stats.
|
|
|
Post by redskoolaiddrinker on May 31, 2015 14:27:41 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... Many have missed my opening comment in this thread "...I believe all will ultimately be bullpen arms. The Reds have NO starter prospects." This belief is irrespective of April, May or future stats. So if they have NO starting prospects, then who will start?
|
|
|
Post by vtreds22 on May 31, 2015 14:51:22 GMT -5
Not patronizing. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. It's another to make blanket statements such as "he's a reliever" and "he's regressed" based on a one month sample size. As I said, one month, or roughly 25 innings, is way too small of a sample size to draw any sort of definitive conclusions. I mean, his April ERA was 1.04. Nobody realistically expected that to hold up over the full course of a season. He's ultimately a reliever. That's my belief. It's not based on his April or May stats. If I am wrong, and I have been on many occasions, then big deal. I'd really like Lorenzon, Iglesias and Desclafani to work out as starters, but I think this is another instance where the FO tries to get starters on the cheap. Again, just my opinion. No need for you guys to be bent out of shape because our opinions might differ. Why are some of guys so irrepressible? I think I know why. I admire your passion for the Reds. Mine goes back to June 21, 1964. By the way I'll be in Philly on Wednesday, Desclafani is pitchig. I'll let you know what I think. Take care. That's all well and good that you believe that, but it just appears to be based on nothing. You first based it on him "regressing" in May (and have appeared to back off of that now) and now, I don't know what you base it on. Appears to just be a hunch... or something. But whatever works. Hope you have fun at the game! I doubt I'll be able to catch the Reds in person this year (maybe I should have said "fortunately").
|
|