Showcasing Salty, Escobar?

Tomasz Radko wrote:
> Sam Hutcheson napisa³(a):
> > Colin William wrote:
> >> "Sam Hutcheson" <samh.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >>> Every starter after Smoltz -- Hudson isn't a 91+ ERA guy, Jorge Sosa
> >>> and John Thomson is gone, replaced with Hampton and James, and Horacio
> >>> Ramirez is now a servicable #5 rather than an overmatched #3. Kyle
> >>> Davies waits in the wings. We shouldn't see quite so many starts from
> >>> Cormier.
> >> Do people at this point still expect Davies to be useful? I didn't seen him
> >> pitch this year, so I don't know how his stuff looks. But he's allowed 188
> >> hits and 82 walks in 151 major league innings. Should we expect him to be
> >> better once he gets more distance from his injuries?
> >
> > I no longer expect Davies to be a top tier starter in the majors (at
> > least not soon), but I do expect Davies to be a bit better than Horacio
> > Ramirez in the #4/5 slot, and at the very least to not be Cormier.
>
> Oh, it's not even close, just look at K9 and BB9. Davies could be a
> legit starter, Ramirez '03 season was a fluke.

I think we can officially apply the Freezeland Rule to this point: if
Tomasz and I agree on something, it's probably true.

s/
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

Sam Hutcheson wrote:
>>>Yes. Chipper will miss time with injury and mash the ball when
>>>healthy. Smoltz has put up 2 years of sterling work and seems like a
>>>reasonable bet for the Roger Clemens career decline path.
>>
>>So you think Smoltzie is juicing himself?
>
> Whatever gets you through the night, buddy. No, I'm not accusing
> Smoltz of juicing

I think Tomasz was actually making a joke at Mr Clemens' expense.

Colin
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

Sam Hutcheson napisał(a):
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> Sam Hutcheson napisa³(a):
>>
>>> Things that should get better next year:
>>>
>>> Every starter after Smoltz -- Hudson isn't a 91+ ERA guy, Jorge Sosa
>>> and John Thomson is gone, replaced with Hampton and James, and Horacio
>>> Ramirez is now a servicable #5 rather than an overmatched #3. Kyle
>>> Davies waits in the wings. We shouldn't see quite so many starts from
>>> Cormier.
>>>
>>> The entire bullpen.
>>>
>>> Freedom.
>>>
>>> Things that will probably regress: 2B, C, 1B.
>> So you're taking Smoltzie and Joneses for granted?
>
> Yes. Chipper will miss time with injury and mash the ball when
> healthy. Smoltz has put up 2 years of sterling work and seems like a
> reasonable bet for the Roger Clemens career decline path.

So you think Smoltzie is juicing himself?

pzdr

TRad
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

Sam Hutcheson napisa³(a):
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>
>>> Yes. Chipper will miss time with injury and mash the ball when
>>> healthy. Smoltz has put up 2 years of sterling work and seems like a
>>> reasonable bet for the Roger Clemens career decline path.
>> So you think Smoltzie is juicing himself?
>
> Whatever gets you through the night, buddy. No, I'm not accusing
> Smoltz of juicing, but he's been dominant as a #1 starter the last
> couple of years and Clemens, Glavine, Maddux et. al have shown us that
> modern medicine/training can keep a devoted athlete competitive well
> into his 40s. I see no reason to expect John Smoltz to seriously
> decline next year.

And via induction till his 70s? Yes, he had a great season (and with
better bullpen and/or run support should be a CY contender), but he's
_old_. I wish him all the best (I always like more veterans fighting
with age than youngsters), but another great season would be a nice
surprise.

pzdr

TRad
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

Sam Hutcheson napisa³(a):
> Colin William wrote:
>> "Sam Hutcheson" <samh.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>> Every starter after Smoltz -- Hudson isn't a 91+ ERA guy, Jorge Sosa
>>> and John Thomson is gone, replaced with Hampton and James, and Horacio
>>> Ramirez is now a servicable #5 rather than an overmatched #3. Kyle
>>> Davies waits in the wings. We shouldn't see quite so many starts from
>>> Cormier.
>> Do people at this point still expect Davies to be useful? I didn't seen him
>> pitch this year, so I don't know how his stuff looks. But he's allowed 188
>> hits and 82 walks in 151 major league innings. Should we expect him to be
>> better once he gets more distance from his injuries?
>
> I no longer expect Davies to be a top tier starter in the majors (at
> least not soon), but I do expect Davies to be a bit better than Horacio
> Ramirez in the #4/5 slot, and at the very least to not be Cormier.

Oh, it's not even close, just look at K9 and BB9. Davies could be a
legit starter, Ramirez '03 season was a fluke.

pzdr

TRad
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> I no longer expect Davies to be a top tier starter in the majors (at
>> least not soon), but I do expect Davies to be a bit better than Horacio
>> Ramirez in the #4/5 slot, and at the very least to not be Cormier.
>
> Oh, it's not even close, just look at K9 and BB9. Davies could be a
> legit starter, Ramirez '03 season was a fluke.

HoRam has at least shown the ability to be mediocre, something that has
thus far eluded Davies. Davies has a much healthier strikeout rate int
he majors but 82 walks in 151 innings is scary and his hit rate has been
ugly.

I'm not saying Kyle doesn't have potential, but so far he hasn't matched
ramirez's normal years.

colin
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

Colin William napisa³(a):
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>>> I no longer expect Davies to be a top tier starter in the majors (at
>>> least not soon), but I do expect Davies to be a bit better than Horacio
>>> Ramirez in the #4/5 slot, and at the very least to not be Cormier.
>>
>> Oh, it's not even close, just look at K9 and BB9. Davies could be a
>> legit starter, Ramirez '03 season was a fluke.
>
> HoRam has at least shown the ability to be mediocre, something that has
> thus far eluded Davies. Davies has a much healthier strikeout rate int
> he majors but 82 walks in 151 innings is scary and his hit rate has been
> ugly.
>
> I'm not saying Kyle doesn't have potential, but so far he hasn't matched
> ramirez's normal years.

His K9 is going up, his BB9 is going down. Minors numbers look healthy.
But I agree with your diagnose: HoRam is a consistent, little below
average pitcher, while Davies is for now just inconsistent. But we know
that HoRam never will be a 3rd-4th starter, while Davies could be. So
keep HoRam while cheap, then say sayonara, there are a lot of pitchers
like him.

pzdr

TRad
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

Tomasz Radko wrote:
> His K9 is going up, his BB9 is going down. Minors numbers look healthy.
> But I agree with your diagnose: HoRam is a consistent, little below
> average pitcher, while Davies is for now just inconsistent. But we know
> that HoRam never will be a 3rd-4th starter, while Davies could be. So
> keep HoRam while cheap, then say sayonara, there are a lot of pitchers
> like him.

Davies BB/9 only went down a smidgen this year, from 5.03/9IP to a still
scary 4.7/9 IP. At the same time his hit rate went way the hell up. So
if he was throwing more strikes, they were getting hammered.

Again, I didn't see him pitch, and I don't want to underestimate the
recovery time from his injury, and his minor league numbers look good.
But then, Horam also had a very good minor league K rate - not as good
as Davies, but still a nice 6.9/9IP.

The difference so far between Davies in the minors and Davies is some
increase in walk rate, but most it's in hit rate. In the minors Davies
allowed only 440 hits in 528 innings, whereas in the majors he's allowed
188 in 151 innings. Among those extra hits are a lot of extra homers.

Overall I agree that we should keep him around a while longer - he is
only 22 with a live arm - and cut bait on Horacio whenever he becomes
expensive. But so far Davies hasn't really shown anything in the majors
since his first four starts.

Colin
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

On November 02 2006, "Sam Hutcheson" <samh.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
> Colin William wrote:
>> Sam Hutcheson wrote:
>>>>> Yes. Chipper will miss time with injury and mash the ball when
>>>>> healthy. Smoltz has put up 2 years of sterling work and seems
>>>>> like a reasonable bet for the Roger Clemens career decline path.
>>>>
>>>> So you think Smoltzie is juicing himself?
>>>
>>> Whatever gets you through the night, buddy. No, I'm not accusing
>>> Smoltz of juicing
>>
>> I think Tomasz was actually making a joke at Mr Clemens' expense.
>
> Probably. Certainly Clemens is as good a bet as any for professional
> juicers.
>
> s/

Clemens -- Juicing -- Minute Maid Stadium?

Coincidence -- I think not. Elementary my dear Watson, just a bit of
deductive reasoning and the answer is clear.
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

> > > I no longer expect Davies to be a top tier starter in the majors (at
> > > least not soon), but I do expect Davies to be a bit better than Horacio
> > > Ramirez in the #4/5 slot, and at the very least to not be Cormier.
>
> > Oh, it's not even close, just look at K9 and BB9. Davies could be a
> > legit starter, Ramirez '03 season was a fluke.
>
> I think we can officially apply the Freezeland Rule to this point: if
> Tomasz and I agree on something, it's probably true.

esp if you both have logical arguments.

--
Ben
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

"Colin William" <colintwilliam DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4qupjiFp012cU1@individual.net...
> Tomasz Radko wrote:
>> His K9 is going up, his BB9 is going down. Minors numbers look healthy.
>> But I agree with your diagnose: HoRam is a consistent, little below
>> average pitcher, while Davies is for now just inconsistent. But we know
>> that HoRam never will be a 3rd-4th starter, while Davies could be. So
>> keep HoRam while cheap, then say sayonara, there are a lot of pitchers
>> like him.
>
> Davies BB/9 only went down a smidgen this year, from 5.03/9IP to a still
> scary 4.7/9 IP. At the same time his hit rate went way the hell up. So if
> he was throwing more strikes, they were getting hammered.
>
> Again, I didn't see him pitch, and I don't want to underestimate the
> recovery time from his injury, and his minor league numbers look good. But
> then, Horam also had a very good minor league K rate - not as good as
> Davies, but still a nice 6.9/9IP.
>
> The difference so far between Davies in the minors and Davies is some
> increase in walk rate, but most it's in hit rate. In the minors Davies
> allowed only 440 hits in 528 innings, whereas in the majors he's allowed
> 188 in 151 innings. Among those extra hits are a lot of extra homers.
>
> Overall I agree that we should keep him around a while longer - he is only
> 22 with a live arm - and cut bait on Horacio whenever he becomes
> expensive. But so far Davies hasn't really shown anything in the majors
> since his first four starts.
>
> Colin



FWIW, from watching him pitch, he is like most other RH pitchers whose
fastballs top out at 91 MPH: if he keeps the ball down he does well; if he
gets the ball up he gets hammered. On top of this, it seemed to me that he
tried to nibble on the outside corner, would then walk a guy or two, then
throw a high fastball right down the middle. I recall him having one
outstanding start and a bunch of not-so-good ones. HoRam is a lefty and
therefore by MLB rules will be gainfully employed until age 45. Davies is a
RH pitcher who doesn't throw hard enough to dominate at the big-league
level. I don't personally see either of them ever being better than a
number 4 starter.

--
Bob Horton
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar? 

"Sam Hutcheson" <samh RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1162485016.932982.95910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Tomasz Radko wrote:
> Sam Hutcheson napisa³(a):
> > Tomasz Radko wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes. Chipper will miss time with injury and mash the ball when
> >>> healthy. Smoltz has put up 2 years of sterling work and seems like a
> >>> reasonable bet for the Roger Clemens career decline path.
> >> So you think Smoltzie is juicing himself?
> >
> > Whatever gets you through the night, buddy. No, I'm not accusing
> > Smoltz of juicing, but he's been dominant as a #1 starter the last
> > couple of years and Clemens, Glavine, Maddux et. al have shown us that
> > modern medicine/training can keep a devoted athlete competitive well
> > into his 40s. I see no reason to expect John Smoltz to seriously
> > decline next year.
>
> And via induction till his 70s? Yes, he had a great season (and with
> better bullpen and/or run support should be a CY contender), but he's
> _old_. I wish him all the best (I always like more veterans fighting
> with age than youngsters), but another great season would be a nice
> surprise.

Clearly John Smoltz will decline as he ages (more). No one suggests
otherwise. But I think we have a pretty reasonable sample of 38-40
year old pitchers in the modern era who _are not declining at the rate
of pitchers from previous eras._ All of them are tracking, with
obvious individual idiosyncracies, along the Nolan Ryan decline path.
Ryan was notorious in his day for his training discipline, as Roger
Clemens is similarly known today. Clemens is probably this era's
outlier, but _all_ pitchers train more diligently than did pitchers in
years past, even known slackers like Greg Maddux. As such, barring
major injury, we're seeing top tier pitchers pitch effectively well
into their late 30s and early 40s. Clemens, Glavine, Maddux, Randy
Johnson, etc, et. al.

Quite simply put, I don't think the old model of when to expect decline
holds sway any more. I think modern training and modern medicine keep
good-to-great pitchers effective later into their careers than in eras
past. I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Roger Clemens
will be dominant if he pitches in 2007. I think it's no great stretch
to say Tom Glavine will be an effective #1 or #2 despite his age. I
suspect that Greg Maddux still has a couple or three years as an
innings eater #3 left in him, or that as long as his back holds up
Randy Johnson is a solid bet for top of the rotation performance.

Barring major injury, Smoltz slots into the top of that list, closer to
Clemens than Maddux or Glavine. For one, he's younger than the other
guys. For two, he's a power pitcher, and they have a long history of
slower declines than finesse guys like Maddux and Glavine. Finally, he
simply doesn't have as many pitches thrown as those guys, due to
injuries early in his career and his stint as a closer. I'm not
suggesting that he won't decline, he will -- all of them will. But I
think Smoltz is good for another couple of years, a la Clemens, and
that barring major, unforseen injury we can expect him to more or less
duplicate 2006 next year.

Of course, all of this is somewhat uncharted territory. By historical
standards every single one of those pitchers should be golfing year
round these days.

s/

I totally agree. In fact, I would be hugely surprised if Smoltz didn't put
up at least as good of numbers next year as this year. I actually think he
has finally figured out how to use change-of-pace as a weapon. The younger
Smoltz threw eveything hard. Closer Smoltz threw 90+ MPH sliders! The
current Smoltz can still throw it 95 when he wants to, but mixes in enough
off-speed stuff to keep the hitters off-balance. He is fun to watch in this
current iteration. Myabe he'll start for a couple more seasons then go back
to being a closer for 4 or 5 years. Why not ?

--
Bob Horton
 >> Stay informed about: Showcasing Salty, Escobar?