242D25343A400 wrote:
So are you back to the fangraphs hypothesis now? He was lights out because he was pitching to AL hitters and they weren't aware not to swing?
Right, we're all amateur internet scouts that can look at any piece of data and draw whatever conclusion we want to from it.
My overall theory is that his boost in performance was a result of being moved out of pittsburgh. I feel pretty sure that he would not have pitched effectively at all in pittsburgh last year. your conclusion seems to imply that he was good all along and that his effectiveness after moving to Toronto is evidence that the Pirates messed up by dumping him.
Obviously an agree to disagree situation. But going forward, I definitely think he's a question mark and am glad that they don't have a $13M question mark in the rotation.
Liriano or Nova?
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Liriano or Nova?
1528363B343E35173F28393F3E5A0 wrote:
So are you back to the fangraphs hypothesis now? He was lights out because he was pitching to AL hitters and they weren't aware not to swing?
Right, we're all amateur internet scouts that can look at any piece of data and draw whatever conclusion we want to from it.
My overall theory is that his boost in performance was a result of being moved out of pittsburgh. I feel pretty sure that he would not have pitched effectively at all in pittsburgh last year. your conclusion seems to imply that he was good all along and that his effectiveness after moving to Toronto is evidence that the Pirates messed up by dumping him.
Obviously an agree to disagree situation. But going forward, I definitely think he's a question mark and am glad that they don't have a $13M question mark in the rotation.
Hahaha. They just signed a guy who pitched slightly worse in the same sample, and has a very pedestrian, unquestionably inferior career prior to it...for 3/26 with incentives.
Glad ur happy nutting didn't "risk" 13 mil and have a question mark in the rotation. Instead he's risking 26 million plus incentives (9 mil, first year with signing bonus) on a question mark. Instead of having both
If only some of you guys would get a percentage of those 35-40 million per year profits you protect on message boards...
So are you back to the fangraphs hypothesis now? He was lights out because he was pitching to AL hitters and they weren't aware not to swing?
Right, we're all amateur internet scouts that can look at any piece of data and draw whatever conclusion we want to from it.
My overall theory is that his boost in performance was a result of being moved out of pittsburgh. I feel pretty sure that he would not have pitched effectively at all in pittsburgh last year. your conclusion seems to imply that he was good all along and that his effectiveness after moving to Toronto is evidence that the Pirates messed up by dumping him.
Obviously an agree to disagree situation. But going forward, I definitely think he's a question mark and am glad that they don't have a $13M question mark in the rotation.
Hahaha. They just signed a guy who pitched slightly worse in the same sample, and has a very pedestrian, unquestionably inferior career prior to it...for 3/26 with incentives.
Glad ur happy nutting didn't "risk" 13 mil and have a question mark in the rotation. Instead he's risking 26 million plus incentives (9 mil, first year with signing bonus) on a question mark. Instead of having both
If only some of you guys would get a percentage of those 35-40 million per year profits you protect on message boards...
-
Bobster21
Liriano or Nova?
The knock on Liriano throughout his career his been inconsistency. He always had great games and some awful games and you never knew which Liriano you were getting from game to game. But the good games outnumbered the bad games. But last year for the Bucs he rarely strung together 2 good games in a row. I felt they were just losing patience with him.
As far as his good games with Toronto go, he was having a pretty solid July for the Pirates until his last 2 starts. In fact, in the 3 starts prior to his final 2 as a Pirate, his ERA was 3.06. So then he had his usual inconsistency with 2 bad starts to close out July and then was dealt. His first start for the Blue Jays was good. The second one was awful. Then he pitched well in his last 6 starts. So what I see is the normal inconsistency from Liriano. He didn't just suddenly change for Toronto, because he had some good starts for the Bucs shortly before the trade. The Jays saw the good-then bad-Liriano in his first 2 starts for them and then he finished strong. It's always a puzzle as to why a pitcher who can be so good can also be so bad as often as him. I think the Pirates simply gave up on waiting for him to pitch well consistently. I think it will be the same with Toronto.
As far as his good games with Toronto go, he was having a pretty solid July for the Pirates until his last 2 starts. In fact, in the 3 starts prior to his final 2 as a Pirate, his ERA was 3.06. So then he had his usual inconsistency with 2 bad starts to close out July and then was dealt. His first start for the Blue Jays was good. The second one was awful. Then he pitched well in his last 6 starts. So what I see is the normal inconsistency from Liriano. He didn't just suddenly change for Toronto, because he had some good starts for the Bucs shortly before the trade. The Jays saw the good-then bad-Liriano in his first 2 starts for them and then he finished strong. It's always a puzzle as to why a pitcher who can be so good can also be so bad as often as him. I think the Pirates simply gave up on waiting for him to pitch well consistently. I think it will be the same with Toronto.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Liriano or Nova?
Nova is at the same age when Liriano was acquired. I don't see a fault in projecting Nova to be better based on age and most recent results.
Why did people want Happ so bad last year? He had a small sample size of success and not a very good three years prior to joining the Pirates. Happ is also four years older than Nova.
Just like Nova, many (here, media, experts) even mocked the trade for Happ in the first place.
Why did people want Happ so bad last year? He had a small sample size of success and not a very good three years prior to joining the Pirates. Happ is also four years older than Nova.
Just like Nova, many (here, media, experts) even mocked the trade for Happ in the first place.
Liriano or Nova?
6B60686461607B3E384F766E676060216C600F0 wrote: Nova is at the same age when Liriano was acquired. I don't see a fault in projecting Nova to be better based on age and most recent results.
Why did people want Happ so bad last year? He had a small sample size of success and not a very good three years prior to joining the Pirates. Happ is also four years older than Nova.
Just like Nova, many (here, media, experts) even mocked the trade for Happ in the first place.
the big question is whether the Bucs are making the right assessments on pitchers like Liriano, Happ and Nova.
Did the Bucs think Happ was likely to continue pitching well but decided not to sign him for another reason (money, length of contract for example). Did the Bucs assess that Liriano is never going to be as good as he was in 2014 and 2015? That 2016 was the new norm for him so it was vital to cut future losses? What do the Bucs expect from Nova? They didn't rush out to offer him a contract that shows that they expect him to continue like he did in 2016 so it could be they expect him to regress quite a bit from his performance with the Bucs (and everybody else thinks so too since he didn't get paid as high as many had predicted).
Why did people want Happ so bad last year? He had a small sample size of success and not a very good three years prior to joining the Pirates. Happ is also four years older than Nova.
Just like Nova, many (here, media, experts) even mocked the trade for Happ in the first place.
the big question is whether the Bucs are making the right assessments on pitchers like Liriano, Happ and Nova.
Did the Bucs think Happ was likely to continue pitching well but decided not to sign him for another reason (money, length of contract for example). Did the Bucs assess that Liriano is never going to be as good as he was in 2014 and 2015? That 2016 was the new norm for him so it was vital to cut future losses? What do the Bucs expect from Nova? They didn't rush out to offer him a contract that shows that they expect him to continue like he did in 2016 so it could be they expect him to regress quite a bit from his performance with the Bucs (and everybody else thinks so too since he didn't get paid as high as many had predicted).
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Liriano or Nova?
The Pirates did sign Liriano, so they probably thought he would continue his success.
The Pirates did offer Happ a contract before he signed with Toronto. It was Happ's first time as a free agent and I am sure he took the best offer. Many teams were offering two years.
The Pirates offered a contract to Nova before he hit the market too. They ended up signing him.
I am sure the Pirates thought highly of all three to offer them contracts and that they will continue their success. I am sure teams weigh in regression and progression too. Too many stats in baseball not to look at that stuff and make projections.
I still ask why people wanted Happ back considering his small sample size and his years prior to the Pirates? If that is the knock on Nova, Happ was worse and older than Nova before he was a Pirate.
The Pirates did offer Happ a contract before he signed with Toronto. It was Happ's first time as a free agent and I am sure he took the best offer. Many teams were offering two years.
The Pirates offered a contract to Nova before he hit the market too. They ended up signing him.
I am sure the Pirates thought highly of all three to offer them contracts and that they will continue their success. I am sure teams weigh in regression and progression too. Too many stats in baseball not to look at that stuff and make projections.
I still ask why people wanted Happ back considering his small sample size and his years prior to the Pirates? If that is the knock on Nova, Happ was worse and older than Nova before he was a Pirate.
-
OrlandoMerced
Liriano or Nova?
Entering 2016, the Pirates had an extensive track record of extracting value from pitchers placed into the discard pile.
Aside from the bullpen guys like Hanrahan and Melancon, we can start the list with Burnett and run through Happ The let Burnett, Volquez and Happ walk, and Happ was the first one to really bite them on ass. So while I think every Pirate fan agrees that they should have paid Happ last year, you need to employ some revisionist history to not be able to at least understand why the Pirates would have not matched that offer.
Aside from the bullpen guys like Hanrahan and Melancon, we can start the list with Burnett and run through Happ The let Burnett, Volquez and Happ walk, and Happ was the first one to really bite them on ass. So while I think every Pirate fan agrees that they should have paid Happ last year, you need to employ some revisionist history to not be able to at least understand why the Pirates would have not matched that offer.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Liriano or Nova?
They didn't actually just let them walk with no interest. They tried to sign all three of those guys. It wasn't like Locke, with no attempt. Burnett even came back after going back on his word.
-
OrlandoMerced
Liriano or Nova?
True, made offers to these guys. I think the lesson here though is that the Pirates have internal methods to determine player value, and they strictly stick to that value.
You can kind of see that with Nova, the Pirates got Nova for a price much lower than anyone would have thought, if a higher offer came from somewhere else for Nova, I doubt that the Pirates would have matched.
I think this can also be seen in the absence of the Pirates from the Intl market. The market structure created the incentive to spend way over the limit in a single year bloated the price of the top intl prospects. Those prospects didn't become more valuable in real terms, on in their market price. The Pirates just sat out of that market, and are now in a position to compete for the top intl prospects in the coming years. If they don't increase their spending, then I will wind back a lot of my favorable impressions of this team and their willingness to reach the next level.
You can kind of see that with Nova, the Pirates got Nova for a price much lower than anyone would have thought, if a higher offer came from somewhere else for Nova, I doubt that the Pirates would have matched.
I think this can also be seen in the absence of the Pirates from the Intl market. The market structure created the incentive to spend way over the limit in a single year bloated the price of the top intl prospects. Those prospects didn't become more valuable in real terms, on in their market price. The Pirates just sat out of that market, and are now in a position to compete for the top intl prospects in the coming years. If they don't increase their spending, then I will wind back a lot of my favorable impressions of this team and their willingness to reach the next level.
-
Bobster21
Liriano or Nova?
I take players' public comments with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, it was good to hear Nova say that Searage and Cervelli were factors in decision to stay.
“The two months I spent here made me want to continue to be here,” Nova said. “Everything fell into place. The pitching coach (Ray Searage), the catcher (Francisco Cervelli) and everybody behind me helped me out. They gave me a lot of confidence.”
http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/1169 ... es-million
“The two months I spent here made me want to continue to be here,” Nova said. “Everything fell into place. The pitching coach (Ray Searage), the catcher (Francisco Cervelli) and everybody behind me helped me out. They gave me a lot of confidence.”
http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/1169 ... es-million