Quote: Originally Posted By jtrinsey on 12/01/2009I could see two situations where that guy should be on an ML roster.

1.) As an injury fill-in.
2.) If he's 90+ in both GB/FB and Velocity and he has 30+ stamina he could be an 11th or 12th pitcher, set as a Mop-Up to eat some innings or as a last resort in extra innings. He could probably pitch to a low 5's ERA.

The problem is that he won't strike anybody out, so if you have a ****** defense behind him you don't stand a chance

As to #2: I wouldnt waste one of my 25 man spots on him. You only get 25 guys on your roster, I dont want to throw one of those spots away (which I why I never have a mopup guy).

As to #1 and #2: you can get better than this guy either on the free agent market midseason, on the waiver wire, or unless your team has been totally tanking the draft the past 5-6 seasons, somewhere else in your own minors. I probably have 4-6 guys better than this on the AAA rosters of any team I have ben running for more than 4 or 5 seasons.

Quote: Originally Posted By jtrinsey on 12/01/2009Greinke seems like a guy like this as well, although I haven't seen as much as him. His stuff seems good, but never as amazing as Lincecum or Verlander, etc.... but yet he's just as good or better than those guys

According to fangraphs, Greinke had the 4th best fastball and the 3rd best slider in all of baseball. He's the only pitcher with 2 top 5 pitches. Lincecum's changeup is the best pitch in baseball and Verlander has a good fastball, but not as good as Greinke's.

Quote: Originally posted by chazzzzzz on 12/01/2009
vsL and vsR and pitches are numbers slapped on to a bag of generally unquantifiable things.  A guy can have a hot fastball or a Zito-esque curve (high pitch values), but if the fastball's flat, or the arm action with the curve is a clear tell, or the pitcher doesn't hide either, the great "stuff" of that pitch goes to waste.  In the same way, a pitcher that doesn't have great individual pitches can still be effective with great command and knowledge of pitching (G Maddux is an extreme example).

This is kind of how I think about it. Or to put it another way, splits could be the things a pitcher does before the ball leaves his hand (command, knowledge, funky windup, etc.) and the pitches are, of course, what leaves his hand.

I never understand how/why so many people talk about 60 splits as "way below ML-average". I want to see the staffs full of 70/80 splits.

This guy has nothing special going on but he's a 60 split guy with a few OK pitches and no velocity.

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=585280

He's obviously not an ace but he puts up numbers, in a neutral park, that should be more than acceptable on any staff.

Someone tell my why, with his "way below ML splits" and "average, at best, pitches", he doesn't suck.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 12/01/2009I never understand how/why so many people talk about 60 splits as "way below ML-average".   I want to see the staffs full of 70/80 splits.This guy has nothing special going on but he's a 60 split guy with a few OK pitches and no velocity.http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=585280He's obviously not an ace but he puts up numbers, in a neutral park, that should be more than acceptable on any staff.   Someone tell my why, with his "way below ML splits" and "average, at best, pitches", he doesn't suck.  

That guy has +10 vL, +5 vR, +11 1st pitch, +17 2nd-best pitch and +23 3rd-best pitch, compared to the OP.

There's a pretty substantial difference between your guy (who any reasonable person would peg as a nothing less than a good pitcher) and the OP's guy. The OP's guy actually doesn't have terrible splits, he just has really ****** pitches. From a cursory browse around the two worlds I play in, I couldn't find too many effective pitchers with 65/55/45-type splits unless their splits were both pushing 70.

There are always some comments that seem to have a slightly unrealistic view though... "I like to a guy to have 70 or better in batting eye, contact and power, as long as he can play quality centerfield." Yeah, no ****, Billy Beane.

I think that's my point. There's always someone saying "I just can't find any use for those way below ML-average 60 split pitchers." I'm not comparing my guy to the OP guy(I said his player would get lit up at post #3 or so). I'm just wondering why so many people act as if a 60 split pitcher with a couple of pitches in the 70s can never be effective.

While I am happy with high splits if I can get them, they're not the be-all, end-all. This guy has 43 vR and has still had a good career in a hitter's park.

makes me want to make a thread titled ***** quality

Quote: Originally posted by erffdogg on 12/01/2009makes me want to make a thread titled ***** quality

This post makes me want to see such a thread.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 12/01/2009
I think that's my point. There's always someone saying "I just can't find any use for those way below ML-average 60 split pitchers." I'm not comparing my guy to the OP guy(I said his player would get lit up at post #3 or so). I'm just wondering why so many people act as if a 60 split pitcher with a couple of pitches in the 70s can never be effective.

I think too many people who specialize in tanking to get high picks and bidding 20+ on IFAs discard perfectly useful MLers because they're not "blue chip" talents.

I've had a lot of luck with pitchers who don't do anything overly well, but have no achilles heel-type flaw. Ratings in the 60s and 70s won't get you an ace, but they're perfectly decent as long as they don't have any 30- or 40-something rating warts in performance categories.

Quote: Originally posted by iain on 12/01/2009
I think too many people who specialize in tanking to get high picks and bidding 20+ on IFAs discard perfectly useful MLers because they're not "blue chip" talents.

I've had a lot of luck with pitchers who don't do anything overly well, but have no achilles heel-type flaw.  Ratings in the 60s and 70s won't get you an ace, but they're perfectly decent as long as they don't have any 30- or 40-something rating warts in performance categories.

Bingo. And they're missing a huge part of the fun, in my opinion.

Anyone can identify the studs, but it takes something approaching skill to pick a guy off the scrap heap and put him in a position to succeed. I'm always thrilled when those gambles pay off.

Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 12/01/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 12/01/2009
I think that's my point. There's always someone saying "I just can't find any use for those way below ML-average 60 split pitchers." I'm not comparing my guy to the OP guy(I said his player would get lit up at post #3 or so). I'm just wondering why so many people act as if a 60 split pitcher with a couple of pitches in the 70s can never be effective.

I think too many people who specialize in tanking to get high picks and bidding 20+ on IFAs discard perfectly useful MLers because they're not "blue chip" talents

Since I called the splits below average, I guess I should answer this.

Everything balances. I talk about 70 as a benchmark because 70 is a nice, round number for n00bs to focus on; a hypothetical pitcher that had all 70s in the red ratings, control through P3, would be a slightly below average pitcher, ERA of high 4s in a neutral park. Basically, for a pitcher to be ML-quality, all ratings that are noticeably below 70 have to be balanced by some other, well above 80 rating, especially if the low rating is control or splits. So it's not that you can't use a pitcher with 60/60 splits-- it's that you can't use him unless something else excels. This would usually be a control of 85+ and some help from the pitches and GB.

In the case of James, it's the near-excellent (86) control, combined with below average but not ****-poor splits, and above average pitches and GB/FB, that leads to a guy who's a touch above average. Assuming that he pitches in the NL, his career ERA is right on what I would predict. If he pitches in the AL then MikeT23 is a genius, or very lucky, to get that performance.

hey guys. Im about to start my first season and could use a little advice sorting out my pitching staff.

First of all, will 11 guys be enough or should I have 12 in the AL? The team I inherited has a lot of guys that should split time vs rhp and lhp so I'd like to keep 13 bats. I have too many pitchers right now regardless and need to cut down atleast one, but I also have two relievers in AAA that are listed as my 2nd and 3rd and best closers on the depth chart but seem to be blocked.

I put my franchises current ratings into an excel spreadsheet and would love to have someone check it out and make suggestions regarding my staff(as long as you arent in SPAWN). Little help?



thanks

It all depends on you you build, and utilize, your staff. I've had 10-13 at times.