Matusz tonight and in the future

by U2boy417 on Jul 28, 2009 5:01 AM EDT Comment 123 comments

I went to see Matusz pitch at Bowie tonight. 7 IP, 4 hits, 3 BB, 6 Ks. He had all 3 walks in one inning (the ump was squeezing him a little), but otherwise was great. The hits were mostly cheapies.

His FB sat between 88-92 per the stadium gun, getting faster as the game went on (he was always at 90+ by the 3rd inning). He flashed at least two breaking balls and a change-up that was absolutely savage. Batters had no idea what to do with it. Always going down and away, always 7-10 MPH slower than the FB with the same arm speed. Tons of swings and misses on it.

The question now is, Does he get promoted to AAA? In 45 innings at AA, he has a 1.59 ERA, .88 WHIP, and 4.5:1 K-to-BB ratio. 3 levels in one year might be a little ambitious for a pitcher, but Matsuz is sort of forcing the issue, and Tillman's impending promotion opens up a convenient spot. For comparison's sake, David Price pitched only about 90 innings combined at A/AA last year before moving to AAA, which is less than Matusz has this year.

I noticed that Matusz didn't throw very many fastballs inside tonite, (and when his FB missed it was up and away to righties), which might become a concern as he moves up. There were also a few times when it seemed like he was consciously emphasizing the heater (rather than just going to a change-up that would have finished off a batter), which makes sense, since we've heard the O's wanted him to keep working on the FB. This suggests that he's still experimenting a little, but still...I guess you could say the numbers speak for themselves.

So what do you guys think? Should he take Tillman's spot at AAA?

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

3 recs | Comment 123 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

As much as I’d like to see Matusz move up, I see no harm in doing what they did with Tillman this year. Let him finish this year at AA and build confidence and command, and let him start in Norfolk in the spring. If he continues to dominate, give him a mid-season call-up to the show.

by ryanplat on Jul 28, 2009 6:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I see a 3E treatment coming with Matusz.

Keep him in AA for the rest of the year, start him at Norfolk next year, give him a few starts there and then bring him up.
However, it’s very possible that he could finish the year in AAA, but I doubt his promotion, if at all, would happen on Wednesday. If they WERE to promote him this year, I doubt it would be immediately.

"He's a gazelle." -Adam Jones on Nolan Reimold.

by LenaO on Jul 28, 2009 7:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Move him up

I liked how MacPhail slow-played it with Tillman last year, but Matusz is a completely different animal.

Tillman had a lot to work on last year: he was focusing on improving his fastball command and integrating a changeup into his repertoire. Matusz, on the other hand, already has a fully-developed 4 pitch repertoire. All that stands between him and major league success is learning how to use his weapons to get advanced hitters out.

Matusz is not learning anything by toying with batters at AA, so I’d like to see him challenged at AAA.

by dkdc on Jul 28, 2009 10:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

And

Bump up Britton to take Matusz’s place at AA.

by dkdc on Jul 28, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like it

Both parts of it. Matusz was advanced when he came out of college, and therefore i’m not surprised that he has dominated A+ and AA with ease. Let him move to AAA and leave him there for a good while to work on things. If you want to get better you have to play better competition and he is ready for it. Let him learn to work against the experienced hitters at AAA. A year at AAA is not out of line.

"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 28, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's almost no way Matusz spends a year at AAA

Unless he starts really struggling there.

Put it this way – if he’s doing this at AAA by the end of next April, he’s in Baltimore.

by U2boy417 on Jul 28, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Matusz is also older than Tillman no?

I don’t see any harm in giving him another 4-5 starts at AA and if he continues to dominate then move him up. It sounds like they have him working on specific things right now (fastball command primarily), so I think they should stick with that until they are comfortable with his progress. Results sound awesome, but I think they are probably looking at other things as well.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 28, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree, i wouldn't have a problem with him pitching at AAA this year

but i’d like a few more starts down at AA first

Gablehouser: Well, that’s too bad, because the answer your teammate gave was correct.
Sheldon: That’s yoouurrrr opinion.

~ Big Bang Theory

by Aldoran on Jul 28, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah I think that would make sense – especially if they have him working on something specific like fastball command

by O'sFan21 on Jul 28, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that he's approaching his innings limit

So if he moved to AAA, it’d have to be quite soon. He’s up to 112 innings this year – not sure how many he had last year, but I doubt he makes too many more starts before being shut down.

by U2boy417 on Jul 28, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right...

He may only have a handful of starts left.

On the subject of innings limits – does it really make sense to have a hard limit when someone is breezing through lineups and going deep into games? Is throwing 100 pitches over 7 innings more stressful than throwing 100 pitches over 5 innings and throwing more pitches per inning and working out of multiple jams?

I’d let Matusz start 25 games this year, which would be 150 innings at 6 IP/start. If he’s able to get to 160 innings in those 25 starts, then good for him.

He’s already started 19 (including the rained out game), so that’s only 6 more starts.

by dkdc on Jul 28, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see the point

Though I’m not sure whether there’s any hard research out there about whether there actually are “easier innings” and “harder innings” (regarding what it does to your arm)

And maybe the O’s will extend him a little beacuse of this…dont know. But overall I imagine AM will play it pretty safe.

If we extended him a lot, on the grounds that he’d had a lot of easy innings, and then he got injured, there’d be riots.

by U2boy417 on Jul 29, 2009 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the only research around that sort of stuff shows that large numbers of pitches in any single inning (I think the number 40 is a bright red alarm signal) is really bad.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but Jim Palmer and Nolan Ryan

pitched into their 40s. Jim Palmer threw over 300 innings for like three years in a row at one point, everything else was around 275.

I want to see Joe Cooney get a platform to get a really good research article written on this: why is pitching the only thing in sports that seems to have declined? Did the hitters get that much better?

The stock market will never recover, our armies will never again be #1, and our children will drink filthy water for the rest of their lives - HST

by the fix is in on Aug 2, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what does jim palmer and nolan ryan throwing 300 innings/year have to do with me saying that having large numbers of pitches in a single inning (40+) has been proven to be really bad? Were you trying to reply to a different comment or something?

by O'sFan21 on Aug 2, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let him stay at AA

for the time being. Patience, Andy. Patience.

When you're born into the human race you're given a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you're given a front row seat. And some of us have notepads.-George Carlin

by Afghanistan Steve on Jul 28, 2009 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What's the payoff?

If he isn’t being challenged by the hitters at his level, then what good are you doing by leaving him down?

I’d give him another start or two, but if he continues doing what he’s been doing then there is no reason not to let him advance.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Jul 28, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As mentioned numerous times above

If he’s working on something specific (like fastball command or movement) then it makes sense to leave him where he is until he’s done working on it.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 28, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he’s working on a pitch and he’s still not being challenged, then wouldn’t it make more sense to let him work on his pitch at a level in which he’s actually being challenged? Whether or not he’s working on a pitch is pretty irrelevant to me. Pitchers are always working on their pitches. Andy Pettite was talking about working on his slider the other day.

The goal should be to make sure that your young (and old) players are not overwhelmed but are still being challenged. That’s the best way to learn.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Jul 28, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no

If you’re working on developing a pitch you don’t want to struggle. Sorry if it’s snarky, but it’s definitely not irrelevant. There’s a difference between Roy Halladay working on his cutter and a 23 year old prospect working on his fastball. If he fails while working on something it could be a major setback.

Results are what’s irrelevant when you’re working on things.

Being challenged is great, but not when you’re working on specific things.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 28, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by twistedlogic on Jul 29, 2009 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I couldn't disagree more

If you don’t experience failure, then it’s extremely hard to learn.

The point of working on pitches is to see how hitters react and handle your pitches. If you are completely overmatching them no matter what you’re throwing, then what’s the point? How much can you really get by the batter’s reaction? Why even throw to live hitters?

You don’t want to take it too far and have it impossible to learn because you’re being overwhelmed; but the best way to learn is to be challenged. Failure and figuring out how to overcome it is pretty much essential for someone to take it to the next level.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Jul 31, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ummm

Wrong. The point of working on pitches is to learn how to throw the pitches. You need to be able to focus on throwing the pitches completely with 100% conviction, and if you’re worried about getting shelled you’re not going to be able to do that. Additionally, when you’re learning to throw a pitch or working on developing a pitch you will be throwing it in counts and situations that you wouldn’t do if you were strictly trying to get hitters out. In order to do that effectively, again, it helps to not worry about getting your tits ripped. Sorry, but what you describe above is just not what it’s about at all WHILE YOU’RE DEVELOPING PITCHES. Once you’ve pitches are established, then you’re absolutely right that you need to be challenged, but if you’re working on a pitch that’s not what you want.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 1, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ummm

Wrong. You can throw a pitch with as much confidence as you like, if it’s a bad pitch it’s going to get hit. Batters aren’t going to miss just becuase you have conviction. You can’t learn what’s a good pitch and what’s a bad pitch just by throwing to batters who are completely overmatched in the first place.

The best and fastest way to learn anything is to compete against competition that is slightly better than you. You want to become a better chess player? You don’t play 4 year olds. You want to become the best musician? You don’t work to perfect Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. You want to become a better pitcher? You don’t face hitters that you completely overmatch.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 2, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I take it you've spent a lot of time pitching at high levels against good competition?

I have no idea what you’re talking about in that first paragraph – I wasn’t saying that throwing a pitch with conviction was going to make it a successful pitch, but WHEN YOU’RE LEARNING TO THROW A PITCH (like Matusz is!) you have to believe in it to throw it well and if you’re worried about getting hit you’re not going to be able to do that.

Your chess analogy is great and all, but what does it have to do with pitching and baseball?

I’m speaking from experience – you need to have your shit together before pitching against top quality competition. That’s why they send you down to work on things. It’s very difficult to LEARN while pitching against the best. If you want to become a better pitcher (as you ask), you perfect your craft before pitching against the best.

If seeing how well he can do with what he’s got now is the goal as opposed to developing the best possible future major league pitcher, then by all means let’s challenge him and see what happens. I tend to prefer them creating the best possible pitching package before seeing what he can do though. That’s just me.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 2, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably spent as much time pitching in the majors as yourself

But I have spent a ton of time learning things, and you don’t learn if you aren’t challenged.

Matusz is going to be learning about his pitches until the day he retires. Everyone does. Every pitcher is always working on something. He isn’t learning how to throw a fastball, he’s working on different aspects of the pitch, just like every pitcher in the majors. If you want to wait until he’s not working on some part of his game before moving to the next level, then he’ll never be called up.

And the anology wasn’t just chess, it was about learning anything. You can’t learn if you aren’t being challenged, which is probably more true when facing an opponent, like the pitcher/batter matchup.

And if by speaking from experience, you’re sayign that you’ve made the move from a minor league pitcher into having a succesful ML pitching career, then fine I’ll say you have some insight I don’t have; but I still find it difficult to believe that learning to pitch is somehow completely seperate from ever other area where we can learn. You can’t learn if you aren’t being challenged.

If you want to make him the best possible future major league pitcher, you need to keep him learning and keep him challenged. That clearly wasn’t happening in Bowie.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 2, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Learning "things"

Learning one thing doesn’t necessarily translate to learning another.

There’s a gigantic difference between “learning about his pitches” and learning how to pitch. There is a gigantic difference between working on things between starts, refining grips, etc and learning how to pitch. He is 100% not working on his fastball just like every pitcher in the majors. He’s working on location and pitching off of his fastball which is new to him. Once he has that established and he starts tinkering with different kinds of movements, then he’ll be doing what “every other pitcher does” as you say.

I’m not saying I’ve made the move from minor league pitcher to major league pitcher, but I spent 9 years of my life pitching at the highest non-professional levels there are and I can tell you with 100% certainty that when you’re working on things (not tinkering which you do in side sessions, flat-grounds, bullpen sessions, etc) you want to be able to focus on it and if you’re worried about getting hit and impacting your prospect status (or playing time, spot on the team, etc) you’re not going to learn them very well.

You don’t seem to understand that learning and being challenged are not inseperable. There is learning that is done while being challenged which is incredibly important – that’s learning that the fastball at the top of the knees that got you groundballs at A+ needs to be at the bottom of the knees at AA. Then there is learning how to locate your fastball and pitch off of it (or learning how to locate a changeup), and being challenged while doing that is not only not essential – it’s counterproductive.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 2, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he’s learning to use his pitches, then you have to face competant competition. You have to see how batters react. Clearly, the organization doesn’t think he’s still learning the basics of throwing a locating a fastball, or they wouldn’t consider him bringing up to the majors.

At this point, based on what has come out of the organization and their plans, it’s pretty obvious at this point they believe he is just refining his pitches like every other pitcher. Dominating AA hitters probably wasn’t doing very much to improve his game.

Just curious, but what is the highest level non-professional levels? I would have thought that D1 college is the highest level of amatuer pitching in this country.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 7:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i have to agree with o'sfan21 here

dominating AA hitters does not necessarily mean he wasnt improving his game nor does it mean anything about his success in the majors. look at jason berken. he’s been ridiculously inconsistent (i say inconsistent rather than ineffective because he has had a few really good starts) even though he had a 1.05 ERA at AAA. i’d say that was pretty dominant. however, he still hasn’t mastered control of his pitches which has forced him to throw a lot of very hittable pitches in the majors. tillman’s debut showed (IMO) that he still hasn’t fully mastered control of his breaking ball and that forced him to rely on his fastball. i’ll chalk part of that up to nerves since it was his first game and hes only 21 years old, but if that is any indication of the future, matusz could stand for more seasoning in the minors working on the control of all of his pitches.

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jason Berken

Is not and was not comparable to Matusz in anyway. Before this year he was an organization filler who was a long shot to start even a single ML game.

He had a nice run to start the season, but that’s about it.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

organization filler?

in the 6th round of the draft? really? his 12-4 record (3.50 ERA and 1.22 WHIP) last year disagrees with you. that said, sure hes not the “prospect” that matusz is, but matusz is only averaging 5 and 2/3 innings per start at AA. to me, that suggests (even though he only walks 2 per 9 innings) that he’s throwing a lot of pitches.

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is 6th round draft pick really that high?

He was the 175th pick, that doesn’t scream top level prospect to me. He was a 25 year old coming into the season. Baseball Prospectus had his perfect world projection of being a back of the rotation pitcher. His glass half full as maybe a MR.

Matusz is actually averaging 6 1/2 inning per start (unless you really want to count his last start where he was pulled after 1 inning). Besides that start, which is unfair to count against him, he’s gone at least 7 innings per start in all but 1 of his last 5 starts.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

see other posts for my views on the baseball prospectus shit

i did forget to remove the 1 inning start. thanks for reminding me. jake arrieta was twice drafted in the high 20 rounds (i think the first time he was in round 29 or 30) and was but a 5th rounder for the O’s. Yet he’s still one of our top “prospects”

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn’t saying that being drafted in the 6th round means he can’t end up producing, but that is hardly a sign that he will be succesful.

There are tons of guys who were drafted far later than the 6th round who end up producing, but most 6th round picks probably don’t end up being succesful ML players. Arrieta was a fifth, but for what it’s worth he was expected to go far earlier, which is why the Orioles gave him first round money.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but he didnt go earlier

generally there’s a reason for that. but we’re off on a tangent now. back to the initial statement. matusz could use additional seasoning. agree with me or not, we’ll see soon enough i guess.

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup

Although by soon, I hope you aren’t expecting domination starting Tuesday. Even if everything goes perfectly (which it almost never does), there will be a learning curve.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, yes the 6th round of the draft really is that high.

Pitchers who went 6th round or later include:

AJ Burnett (8th round)
Jake Peavy (15th round)
Brandon Webb (8th round)
Ted Lilly (23rd round)

The list goes on. 6th round is very high in the draft.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Read the thread.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did so before posting. Stand by the above. 6th round is very high.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whether you consider it high or not is irrelevant

My point wasn’t that you can’t be succesful out of the 6th round, I clearly said it happens.

The point was that you usually shouldn’t expect an impact pitcher in the 6th round. Go take a look at some of the old drafts and see what percentage of 6th round pitchers make an impact.

Here’s the 2000 draft, looks like about 2/3 are pitchers. Brian Bass seems to be one of the more successful players in this round and most I’ve never even heard of (and probably never will).

http://www.mymlbdraft.com/2000/round6/

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whether you consider it high or not is very much not irrelevant

When you asked if the 6th round is really that high.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

High or not is an opinion

The point was that being a 6th round pick doesn’t make you a good bet to be a ML starter. That was the point of that discussion.

If you go and look at previous drafts, you can probably see that to be true. That’s not to say that occasionally you don’t catch lightning; but it’s fairly uncommon.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If a 6th round pick isn't high, then what is?

1st and 2nd only? There are 50+ rounds many years – if 6th is not high I don’t know what is.

I was looking at the 6th round of other drafts (outside of the really poor one that you sent) and they looked pretty awesome to me.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again

It was about whether or not being a 6th round pick made someone a good shot of being a decent ML starter.

And which one is awesome? I took 2000 because it was a nice round number where we have a general idea of what the players are. 2001 had Edwin Jackson and that’s about it. 1999 had Bedard and Harang (along with Putz), but that’s still around the 15% mark.

2002 has John Maine. 2003 has nobody, although I’m a huge Eric O’Flaherty fan.

Where are these awesome drafts where we see a high percentage becoming ML starters???

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was looking at position players as well as pitchers.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So I was considering Kouz, Kemp, Braun to be pretty awesome.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what made you think any of those guys are good?

;-)

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was looking at starters

Which is why I said starters. BTW, Kouz is “pretty awesome”???? A competant ML player, sure, but he’s a far cry from awesome.

For every Kemp and Braun taken in the 6th round, you have 12+ Jesse Corn’s and Errol Simonitsch’s.

Getting drafted in the sixth round doesn’t make someone a good bet to be a ML contributer.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You could make that argument about every round other than the first (and even the first for pitchers).

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't disagree with that (probably to a lesser extent the first couple rounds)

But if you go back in the thread, you’ll see the point I was making was that being drafted in the sixth round doesn’t make you a good bet to be a solid ML starter.

Most sixth rounders don’t accomplish much of anything

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

tom brady disagrees with you

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He doesn't get an opinion

Jazelle is in control there.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

but tom brady WAS in fact a 6th rounder BEFORE giselle. i think it was bridget moynahan (however you spell that) at that point

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know what "most" means.

Most of the draft is a crap shoot, but the 6th round is still very very high and most of the people drafted in the 6th round are thought to have a good chance of making the majors or they wouldn’t be drafted so high. 6th round also still pays pretty substantial bonuses.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Most" means more than half

And the point still remains, just because Berken was a sixth round pick doesn’t mean he’s a good bet to be a ML starter.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

does more than half of any round (other than maybe 1st or 2nd) make it to the majors as a regular???

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

there are a heck of a lot of 1st rounders that dont make it either

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the round does not matter

Look at the bonus given to a player. Arrieta got sandwich round money and should be viewed as a sandwich pick and not a 5th round pick. Berken was not given over slot so he is not comparable to Arrieta in terms of where he was drafted. End of story.

"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law

by Reddrummer9187 on Aug 3, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

arrieta also went back into the draft twice

he was picked really late the first two times

by twistedlogic on Aug 3, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Out of high school

And it’s pure speculation, but its also likely they thought he wasn’t signing anyway, which is why they just took out flyers in 2005/2004

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

He was probably rated higher in terms of talent but when a player is asking for more than any team thinks he is worth then they drop really far.

"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law

by Reddrummer9187 on Aug 3, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm worry

At this point, based on what has come out of the organization and their plans, it’s pretty obvious at this point they believe he is just refining his pitches like every other pitcher.

Exactly what is obvious about this? If they thought he was just refining his pitches why haven’t they already brought him up to AAA or the big leagues where he can “see how batters react”?

And yes I would agree that D1 college is the highest level of non-professional baseball – and probably more specifically college summer leagues.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's probably starting tomorrow.

That’s why it’s obvious to me. (Unless that’s what the sorry is for).

If he was still learning the basics of throwing a FB, I doubt they would be discussing putting him in the rotation tomorrow.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The discussion was long before they considered starting him tomorrow.

It was about why they hadn’t promoted him yet and whether they should. And it was based on them SAYING that he was learning how to locate and pitch off of his fastball.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I doubt it was long before they started considering it

But that’s probably overly argumentative.

And I think they talked about him learning to locate his fastball a month or two ago. My discussion with you have all been after they talked about him starting tomorrow.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only because you chimed into an ongoing discussion

to say that the only way to learn is to be challenged, which is the only point I was arguing with you about because that point is 100% wrong.

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

Okay, you’re right, I’m wrong.

"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle

by BirdFanInPhilly on Aug 3, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed!

by O'sFan21 on Aug 3, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no luke!

[in my best yoda voice] you must complete with the training before you rush him face him!

by twistedlogic on Jul 28, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Matusz is indeed

still working on things such as fastball command, I would hesitate to move him up to AAA already. Not that this has anything to do with Brian, but our recent promotions to AAA (Brandon Snyder and Troy Patton) have not gone very well. I would hate to see Matusz lose his momentum by advancing to AAA too soon and getting the confidence shelled out of his being.

At the current pace, he is on a comparable course that was established last year by Matt Wieters. Half of a year at A+, half of a year at AA…start next season in Norfolk until the service clock is up, then promote to bigs if ready.

by sickuvitall on Jul 28, 2009 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think more AAA time than that is important

In AAA you get players who are used to more advanced pitching but are not very good at hitting it. Therefore he’ll learn how to fool AAAA players (probably equal to the worst batters he will face at the ML level) and simply having more advanced stuff wont get him by anymore.

I dont care if he spends the time in AAA this year or next year but I want to see him put in his time there.

"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 28, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The keywords

in my final sentence were ‘if ready’. If he is dominating the AAA competition after about a month-and-a-half, I can’t see leaving him there for an entire season.

by sickuvitall on Jul 28, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

I always assume the if ready part. I just think there is more value in leaving him in AAA than AA due to the far more experienced opponents.

"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 28, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think

Brian will see AAA this year. I am hearing rumblings of an innings limit, which he apparently is approaching with each start. At this point, let him finish the season at AA. I don’t think either one of us would agree that only making 1-3 starts at AAA to end the year doesn’t really do much for him.

I also don’t know who will play in the fall/winter leagues, as many of our top pitching prospects have logged quite a few innings. My nominees would be Matt Hobgood, Brandon Erbe (due to lack of total innings pitched this season), and maybe Mychal Givens, our second round pick if we could sign him like now.

by sickuvitall on Jul 29, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He may be working on FB command...

But he’s still absolutely dominating at AA. At this point I think we’re just talking about minor adjustments that, as others have mentioned, pitchers keep making forever.

And I think maybe David Price is a better comp than Wieters, being a top pitcher. Price did the 3 level thing last year and got it done at all 3 places.

by U2boy417 on Jul 28, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And

Matusz has better peripherals than Price had at every stop.

Of course, no one thinks Matusz’s stuff is nearly as good as Price’s.

by dkdc on Jul 28, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Stuff"... whatever

He’s the 3rd ranked pitching prospect in baseball per Baseball America (one slot below Tillman). And like you said, he’s abusing the minors. I just get a little frustrated with the concept of “stuff” – seems like it overshadows other things too often (not saying you’re saying that)

by U2boy417 on Jul 29, 2009 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

“Stuff” is necessary, but give me a pitcher with above average stuff and good control over guy with Strasburg stuff and no control (not saying Strasburg has no control)

"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 29, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stuff Matters

I believe in the predictive value of stats as much as anyone, but there is a long history of pitchers dominating the lower minors and then not translating that into success against more advanced hitters.

Below are two 22 year old pitchers who split their time between A+ and AA and put up very similar stat lines.

Pitcher A
18 Starts
112 IP
120 K
31 BB
7 HR
1.93 ERA

Pitcher B
19 Starts
111 IP
129 K
39 BB
4 HR
1.86 ERA

Pitcher A is Brian Matusz. Pitcher B is Ian Kennedy. Kennedy dominated the same levels as Matusz, but was dogged by questions about whether his stuff was good enough to work at the major league level. So far, the answer is no.

You are right to point out that Matusz is ranked highly by Baseball America. They balance scouting reports with statistical analysis, and there is no way he would rank that high if they didn’t believe in his stuff. Ian Kennedy ranked #41 after putting up the line above, so there’s really no comparison between the two.

But stuff does matter.

by dkdc on Jul 29, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

great post

by twistedlogic on Jul 29, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kennedy is right handed. Sort of blows up the comparison.

Stuff is totally different between LHPs and RHPs.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sort of blows up the comparison.

Blow up the comparison, that strikes me a as a bit strong… is there any evidence for this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just wondering if there’s any evidence. In any case, John Stephens is another case that comes to mind. Did really well in the lower minors. Blew away AA (1.84 ERA in 134 IPs). Couldn’t hack the majors.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't know if there's evidence

But I’ve heard people say that it’s different. Keith Hernandez, for one, said that some lefties could stick in the majors with stuff that would get a righty shipped out right away.

by U2boy417 on Jul 29, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

John Stephens was right handed, so that just furthers my argument.

It’s pretty well known that you don’t need nearly as good stuff as a lefty to get drafted/signed/advance/stick around in professional baseball.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

John Stephens was right handed, so that just furthers my argument.

I don’t know if it furthers your argument, but yeah, brain fart on my part. Stephens is just a redundant example from Kennedy.

It’s pretty well known that you don’t need nearly as good stuff as a lefty to get drafted/signed/advance/stick around in professional baseball.

Yeah, that’s what scares me.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why does that scare you?

It should show that Matusz is not comparable to the guys you’ve named who dominated the minors and didn’t do well at the major league level. You don’t need as good stuff as a lefty to do well and stick in the majors as if you were a RHP. I think it’s great news. If he were right handed it might make me nervous.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chalking up things to convention wisdom and accepting it right scares me. Conventional wisdom is often wrong.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh sometimes.

But if you offer me a RHP and a LHP with comparable stuff and comparable results, I’m taking the LHP 100% of the time.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure, me too.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

although I should add that I would go with the lefty because they’re harder to find, not because of conventional wisdom.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

...

but THAT’S what the “conventional wisdom” is based on.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I thought it was because the arm action of lefties was different. That was the conventional wisdom.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh nah.

I think people just like lefties because they don’t see them as often. 90 mph righties are a dime a dozen, but 90 mph lefties are tough to find. And hitters don’t see them as often so it’s something different.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lefty prospects

Also, the Royals Bruce Chen is someone who did well in the minors as a lefty and struggled in the big leagues due to weak stuff.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How well did he do in the minors?

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bruce was pretty well regarded coming up through the Braves system if I remember correctly. Probably not as high as Matusz though but not a huge difference.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh

comparable in K/9, but I think much worse in BB/9 and ERA and WHIP. K/9 and BB/9 all got worse as he advanced too which is the opposite of what’s happening with Matusz.

I’m actually surprised bby his absurd k/9 numbers though…

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/C/Bruce-Chen.shtml

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Matusz is the better prospect no doubt. He’s not perfect comp but he’s not a bad comp either.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I was surprised. And now scared.

The big thing though is that I don’t think Chen ever threw hard. And he still barely has command of a couple pitches.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did a little searching around on Chen as a prospect. He was ranked as the number 1 prospect in baseball in 1998 by Baseball Prospectus. Baseball America ranked him #4 in 1999. I don’t what was the scouting report on him at the time. In any case, he was just as well regarded as Matusz if not higher.

Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.

by birdman on Jul 29, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

Bruce Chen does not equal Brian Matusz. Pitching prospects are hard to predict, and Bruce Chen is just one example. At the begining of the year a BA analyst said that the most likely scenario for us would be one of the big three becomes a stud, another becomes a solid player and another is a complete bust. This is why AM has gotten so many pitching prospects, because there is safety in numbers.

"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 29, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regardless

He’s NEVER thrown a ball above 92. Matusz sits 92-93 with command of 4 pitches. He’s OBVIOUSLY better than Chen ever was.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He also has MUCH weaker stuff and command than Matusz.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most pitchers who are decent in the bigs

Would have been pretty good in the minors, I imagine. Chen has had not all that bad of a career – 11 seasons w/ 94 ERA+. So him having good MiL #s doesnt surprise me.

Doesnt make him Matusz

by U2boy417 on Jul 29, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I was just surprised to see his k/9 numbers. They are absurdly high.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very good point

Although who is to say Kennedy won’t be a good major leaguer still? He hasn’t really gotten too much time in the major leagues, and if he didn’t play for the most impatient organization in baseball he possibly could have worked out the major league transition.

Stuff matters, but I think sometimes people get enamored with great stuff and forget about looking at the complete package that a pitcher has to offer.

"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 29, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And now he's doing fucking horrible.

So maybe we want to take a different path with Matusz.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 28, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think being in 3 levels last year is what has made Price start out rough in MLB?

by U2boy417 on Jul 29, 2009 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah not really at all.

Just don’t want to use it as a reason to do the same thing with our guy.

by O'sFan21 on Jul 29, 2009 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose

At this point I think Matusz gets the Bergesen treatment next year

by U2boy417 on Jul 29, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it worked for bergesen...

by twistedlogic on Jul 29, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I'd be fine with that

Just keep him down there long enough to get the extra year

by U2boy417 on Jul 29, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know what's best

I just want to thank you for the scouting write-up. Matusz is so fantastical, I was a dunce to want Smoak over him.

by Dingbat Charlie on Jul 28, 2009 6:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the scouting report

At this point, it’s obvious that Matusz wont be in the bigs this year, due to the innings limit. GIven this, I don’t care what level he’s at, as long as he works on his FB (last thing we need is another curveballer breakdown) and be ready to face the AL East at some point next year.

"On my tombstone just write, THE SOREST LOSER THAT EVER LIVED." -- Earl Weaver

by CoachOfEarl on Jul 29, 2009 10:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Matusz AAA?

Look Matusz has a very high ceiling and is the club’s best prospect at pitcher. That list already boasts Chris Tillman, Brad Bergesen, David Hernandez and Mark Arreita. Let Matusz mature right where he is for now in Bowie. If he continues to donimate and remain very stable promote him to Norfolk (AAA) next season and if all things are still go maybe give him a major league look at the end of next year. Rushing prospects up too fast is suicidal. Let these young guys mature and grow. Matusz remains a very advanced pitcher in the minors, however he is not the next Jim Palmer or Cole Hammels. Let’s all be patient with him. The more time he has the better he will be. Also the club is hurting in it’s infield. First, Shortstop and Third are all lagging positions for the club. Promoting prospects to the majors now would just earn them more career losses. Too many holes yet to fill.

by O's_Watcher on Jul 31, 2009 9:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs