Blue Jays Discussion: 1B Chris Colabello tests positive for PEDs; Suspended 80 games by MLB
- Thread starter The Nemesis
- Start date
- Status
Nice oversimplification of my overall point. I wouldn't put Stroman up with Kershaw, Scherzer, and those handful of otherworldly pitchers, as I said in my other post, when splitting hairs among the #1 starters in the game. His inability to strike guys out at a high rate, conceivably makes a difference by leaving him open to the vagaries of the batted ball.
TheBeastCoast
Registered User
It's not that K's are sexy they are the most efficient way to get outs, I get your point and and there are outliers like Halladay but for the majority of pitchers the K is your best option to get a batter out putting the ball in play creates a ton of variables that just getting the guy to swing and miss don't. Now Stroman very well could be developing into that Halladay mold and he does look like he will be an elite groundball pitcher but the K rate does still need to rise a bit from where it is right now. The good thing for me is I don't really think we have seen the good Stroman yet this season, he has been just a little off in all of his starts.
Maplebeasts
I See Demons!!!!!
People are still complaining about the Thor trade? Jeez people, it happened 4 years ago and he was traded for the reigning Cy Young winner. You can't argue that giving up a prospect for one of the top pitchers in baseball didn't make sense for a team trying to contend. Hindsight is 20/20.
Eyedea
The Legend Continues
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...=0,ss&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=1,d
You can see the trend. He was an average strikeout pitcher but was also top 10 in K/BB among starters with >1500 innings in the 2000s.
Except that groundballs also offer the second best chance (to liners) of getting a hit. A strikeout generally guarantees you of an out unless your name is RA Dickey.
zeke
The Dube Abides
- Mar 14, 2005
- 66,937
- 36,957
actually Ks are the least efficient way to get outs.
Stroman made a conscious decision to change his approach during his year off, and the result is an extraordinarily efficient pitcher:
2014: 20gs, 6.0ip/gs, 96pc/gs, 21.1k%, 53.7gb%, 85era-, 73fip-
15-16: 7gs: 6.9ip/gs, 96pc/gs, 15.9k%, 64.5gb%, 72era-, 88fip-
The kid with the Halladayesque stuff decided to pitch with Halladayesque efficiency.
Maplebeasts
I See Demons!!!!!
At the end of the day, the most efficient way to get outs is through groundballs or pop-ups early in the count. The problem with this is that by putting the ball into play, there is that element of risk as you described. I'd say that my ideal pitcher is the guy who punches out dangerous batters but manages to keep his count down by manufacturing groundballs against the less dangerous guys. Going deep into games is something that all ace pitchers need to do.
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
You're still saying that the key thing that holds Stroman back from being considered elite, and a thing that you consider to be a necessity for being elite, is a high strikeout rate.
The counter to that is a pitcher like Roy Halladay (to whom Stroman's 2-seam/sinker heavy arsenal has gotten favorable comparison) was also never a big strikeout pitcher (he got a bump going to the NL, but still barely topped 8 K/9 while there.
So I ask if you can't consider Stroman as a candidate for eliteness based on his lower strikeout rates, how would you be able to let Halladay into the club.
I'm not saying that Stroman is Halladay, or that he will be for sure. But.... You know what? I kind of am saying something similar. When you get past the radically different personalities and Gregg Zaun's grumpy old man Tom Gordon fixation, there's a lot of Doc in Stroman's game. And a lot of signs that say if Doc can be an elite pitcher without sky-high K rates, there's no reason to suggest that Stroman can't be or is limited in his growth potential just because he isn't fanning batters like crazy.
Maplebeasts
I See Demons!!!!!
Hit the nail on the head. Stroman doesn't need batters to whiff on his stuff on a consistent basis, seeing that his movement and arsenal make it difficult to hit him hard. He's efficient and effective, which is all you can really ask of your SPs.
metafour
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2008
- 1,795
- 610
Its not 20/20 at all. Many people knew that that was a brutal trade right when it happened. Dickey was coming off a Cy Young, but he accomplished that by doing things that were inconceivable by knuckleball pitcher standards. You want to know why the MLB isn't littered with knuckleball pitchers? Because its a gimmick pitch that is highly erratic. We bought absurdly high and paid a premium price (two ELITE prospects) on the highly unlikely notion that Dickey was going to be able to repeat on his success the year prior. Basically, we were hoping that he would do what no other knuckleball pitcher had done before him. Given the underlying nature of the pitch, it was a foolish notion and we predictably paid the price. We also clearly underestimated the impact that pitching in NYM's huge pitcher's ballpark versus the Rogers Centre would have on Dickey's performance.
Just because he won the Cy Young, doesn't mean the trade is excusable or justified. You have to look at the underlying player you are acquiring.
You're still misconstruing my original point. I said I don't think he's in the elite group in baseball currently, which includes Kershaw, MadBum, Scherzer, and perhaps Syndergaard if he continues this way. I don't think I'd take Roy over those pitchers either - saying someone's better than Roy doesn't reflect badly on Roy.
When asked to differentiate between two groups of what I admitted were #1 pitchers (and others slightly better), and one includes Stroman, I picked out k rate. Then you came in with me saying K rate makes an elite pitcher.
Muston Atthews
Bunch of Bangerz
I understand that but with our infield defense I'll take it all day. I say efficient because if he's getting GBs early in the count I'll take that all day
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
Well that's just plain untrue. strikeouts are the least efficient way to get guys out. They may be the most reliable way to get an out if you can do it with regularity, but reliability and efficiency are not the same thing.
other food for thought: Greg Maddux only hit 7 k/9 twice in his career.
I know I risk dipping into the "not elite" category, but John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, CC Sabathia, Andy Pettite, Mike Mussina, David Wells, Roy Oswalt, Cliff Lee, Dan Haren, Orel Hersheiser, Jimmy Key, Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright, Jack Morris, and Matt Cain have all been excellent pitchers over the last 30 years with K/9 rates under 8.
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 42,997
- 9,190
The last page of the last thread and this thread so far reads a lot like BJMB, you guys are scaring me
I get K's are the best chance to get a out, it's almost guaranteed. But you have to throw at least 3 pitches, more often 4 or 5, sometimes more. Especially when you're throwing pitches outside the zone and trying to get swings, which is pretty common and a normal thing to do. If you're getting groundballs early in counts you're being more efficient pitch count wise. Some of them will get through, but if most of them you can generate are of the weaker variety that's just as good in my mind.
Speaking of BJMB they get posts there all the time like "I'd take a 5 IP 10 K 0 ER outing over a 8 IP 5 K 0 ER outing every single time" It's moronic. The only thing that exists for most of them are K's, and walks. They might as well call themselves wearefip.com
I get K's are the best chance to get a out, it's almost guaranteed. But you have to throw at least 3 pitches, more often 4 or 5, sometimes more. Especially when you're throwing pitches outside the zone and trying to get swings, which is pretty common and a normal thing to do. If you're getting groundballs early in counts you're being more efficient pitch count wise. Some of them will get through, but if most of them you can generate are of the weaker variety that's just as good in my mind.
Speaking of BJMB they get posts there all the time like "I'd take a 5 IP 10 K 0 ER outing over a 8 IP 5 K 0 ER outing every single time" It's moronic. The only thing that exists for most of them are K's, and walks. They might as well call themselves wearefip.com
But you can't ensure those ground balls come early in the count, thus nullifying the pitch count benefit. Also, this being the age of the bullpen, one could argue that small difference in pitch count isn't all that great. The elite strikeout pitchers go pretty deep anyway.
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,180
- 23,838
......so if you take Syndergaard's K rate from the last 3 games, two of which were against teams that finished in the bottom 4 of runs per game in the MLB during the 2015 season, and extrapolate it over the rest of his career (a reasonable conversion), then clearly he is a generational pitcher.
BTW, I watch Jays through ESPN/opposing feeds, people that don't have a vested interest in doing so pump the **** out of stroman's tires. He's viewed in the group of next big things (as is Thor).
BTW, I watch Jays through ESPN/opposing feeds, people that don't have a vested interest in doing so pump the **** out of stroman's tires. He's viewed in the group of next big things (as is Thor).
Continuing to subtly attribute an argument to me that I never made, well done.
metafour
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2008
- 1,795
- 610
Career numbers:
Stroman: 3.80 P/PA, 15.4 P/IP
Syndergaard: 3.92 P/PA, 15.7 P/IP
Stroman's marginally more "efficient" approach is highly overshadowed by the fact that Syndergaard gives up less hits, walks less batters, and therefore allows fewer runs. Stroman's ultra-efficient approach allows him to pitch marginally deeper into games, but that doesn't mean a whole lot when the alternative allows you to be much more EFFECTIVE by comparison.
Syndergaard is highly efficient himself, which you can see from the numbers. You're not talking about a guy who gets into long counts and therefore can only pitch 5-6 innings. This is because his command is so good (unlike many power pitchers who are wild).
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
You still kind of are saying K rate makes an elite pitcher. You were asked to differentiate between group a, "elite pitchers" and group b, the group that includes stroman and is apparently not elite. The differentiator in your mind is k-rate. From there it's not much of a logical leap to say that in your mind membership in the first group, the group that is baseball's super-elite starters, is to some relatively significant extent dependent on having a high strikeout rate. And the natural inverse of that is that if you don't have a high strikeout rate, you face a much lesser chance of being considered elite.
I'm not saying that right now Syndergaard and Stroman's performances are on the same plane. But I am saying that I would absolutely not bet against Stroman being able to make the leap up towards the tier that Syndergaard will eventually settle into, if not higher (because I believe that sooner or later Syndergaard will likely seem some minor amount of slippage away from his performance level to date.) Stroman has already shown that he can hit that level of effectiveness in his career. It's just a matter of getting there more consistently.
Kershaw's absolutely in a league of his own, so that one's a no-brainer. But if you compare Halladay's seasons with the Jays to Scherzer and Bumgarner's careers, the four best seasons by fWAR are all Halladay's. He also has two partial seasons ('01 and '05) that are better on a per-start basis but he missed time.
I never thought Halladay would become underrated by Jays fans.
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 42,997
- 9,190
Well if you don't generate a ground ball early and get to 2 strikes -> then you go for the strike out and you're exactly like the K pitcher in efficiency.
If you do get a groundball early in the count -> you're more efficient
and before you say you just can't flick the switch on with 2 strikes, Stroman has said he tries to pitch to contact, unlike how he has been inthe past when he didn't do that, and tried for K's. With 2 strikes I'm sure he has the ability to go for the K with the arsenal he has.
So either you're exactly as efficient, or you're more efficient. So on average you work out to be more efficient.
If my great/elite pitcher is pitching well and the 7th or 8th inning comes I'd prefer my elite starter pitch that inning instead of my pen. Sure the pen won't probably me much worse on average, but your ace is going great, let him keep going, I don't see the point of pitching the pen because you can.
And yeah the elite K guys are efficient as well, as long as you can get that K in 4 or 5 pitches most of the time and you let on very few baserunners you're having ~15 pitch innings for the most part which is great. But the elite groundball pitcher will still be slightly more efficicent
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
Don't tell me that conversation doesn't say that qualifying for the super elite category of pitchers requires a high strikeout rate. That's exactly what it says.
And just while I'm going back there, for a time Roy Halladay was the best pitcher in baseball. Insufficient strikeout rate and all.
I said the difference between Stroman and Kershaw, Scherzer, Thor, etc. was K rate. And that makes the latter group on a different level than Stroman right now. That's it. It'd be a pretty asinine argument to make to make to say that execs wouldn't take the latter group over Stroman all other things being equal (age, control, etc.), and that's probably largely because of stuff and K rate, I think it's fair to say. But in no way did I say that means K rate is a necessary component of ANY elite pitcher of ANY era, which is what you introduced to the conversation and is a logical leap.
Then you extrapolated that to listing a multitude of "excellent" pitchers with lower k rates to insinuate that I think all pitchers with low k rates can't be "excellent," while passive-aggressively throwing in a dig with the "non-elite territory" comment, presumably as an attempt to make my original comment seem illogical.
metafour
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2008
- 1,795
- 610
This part is not accurate. Statistics show that even the best pitchers see a noticeable drop in performance going the 4th time through the lineup. Very few pitchers are able to consistently avoid this phenomenon; which is probably why you see so many no-hitters broken up in that ~8th inning range where hitters are seeing a pitcher for the fourth time.
Diamond Joe Quimby
A$AP Joffrey
We had this discussion about two months ago. I believe the same people took the same sides. Nothing really has changed after a couple weeks and three starts. Noah Syndergaard is a great young pitcher, the trade that sent him away from Toronto was putrid. He's more overrated now than he was in late Feb\early March (despite what oddly harassing PM's may say). ERA- and FIP- are not obscure statistics. They are actually a great way to compare pitchers across an even playing field. Strikeouts continue to be tremendously valuable, while also not being the be all and end all of the measure of a starter's skill.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...&rost=0&age=14,25&filter=&players=0&sort=15,a
That is the same list of great young pitchers in baseball that was produced in early March, this time including the first two weeks of 2016.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...&rost=0&age=14,25&filter=&players=0&sort=15,a
That is the same list of great young pitchers in baseball that was produced in early March, this time including the first two weeks of 2016.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
GDT: WCQF | G5 | “Check” | Oilers vs. Kings | 5.1.24 | 8:00PM | SN/CBC- Latest: Lay Z Boy GM
-
