1A3E2A22274B0 wrote: There is too much emphasis on the rotation numbers. I don't care how the top four guys are slotted or labeled. They will all start pretty much the same amount of games.
Rotation numbers are a helpful communicative tool for a discussion. It's a bit like shorthand. Instead of having to express that I think Jameson Taillon is ultimately capable of winning 15-20 games with an ERA well under 3.00 and a WHIP of around 1, all I have to say is I think he's a potential No. 1 starter. For the most part people use these rotation numbers in this way, everyone understands that each starter will get their turns regardless of "their number".
They are getting Ace-like performance from Williams, but he was never projected to be a #1 or a #2 so that is bad. If Taillon was pitching like Williams and Williams was pitching like Taillon, people would be happy based on the labeling. The team is still getting the same production.
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
4249414D4849521711665F474E4949084549260 wrote: There is too much emphasis on the rotation numbers. I don't care how the top four guys are slotted or labeled. They will all start pretty much the same amount of games.
Rotation numbers are a helpful communicative tool for a discussion. It's a bit like shorthand. Instead of having to express that I think Jameson Taillon is ultimately capable of winning 15-20 games with an ERA well under 3.00 and a WHIP of around 1, all I have to say is I think he's a potential No. 1 starter. For the most part people use these rotation numbers in this way, everyone understands that each starter will get their turns regardless of "their number".
They are getting Ace-like performance from Williams, but he was never projected to be a #1 or a #2 so that is bad. If Taillon was pitching like Williams and Williams was pitching like Taillon, people would be happy based on the labeling. The team is still getting the same production.
Oh come on. They are not getting "ace-like" performance from Williams. It's a SSS mirage. Look at his FIP, look at his BB/SO ratio. his H/9 and BABIP against is way, way unsustainable. He's doing a good job, but this is what ace-like performance looks like
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play ... no01.shtml
Rotation numbers are a helpful communicative tool for a discussion. It's a bit like shorthand. Instead of having to express that I think Jameson Taillon is ultimately capable of winning 15-20 games with an ERA well under 3.00 and a WHIP of around 1, all I have to say is I think he's a potential No. 1 starter. For the most part people use these rotation numbers in this way, everyone understands that each starter will get their turns regardless of "their number".
They are getting Ace-like performance from Williams, but he was never projected to be a #1 or a #2 so that is bad. If Taillon was pitching like Williams and Williams was pitching like Taillon, people would be happy based on the labeling. The team is still getting the same production.
Oh come on. They are not getting "ace-like" performance from Williams. It's a SSS mirage. Look at his FIP, look at his BB/SO ratio. his H/9 and BABIP against is way, way unsustainable. He's doing a good job, but this is what ace-like performance looks like
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play ... no01.shtml
-
Bobster21
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
262D25292C2D367375023B232A2D2D6C212D420 wrote: There is too much emphasis on the rotation numbers. I don't care how the top four guys are slotted or labeled. They will all start pretty much the same amount of games.
Rotation numbers are a helpful communicative tool for a discussion. It's a bit like shorthand. Instead of having to express that I think Jameson Taillon is ultimately capable of winning 15-20 games with an ERA well under 3.00 and a WHIP of around 1, all I have to say is I think he's a potential No. 1 starter. For the most part people use these rotation numbers in this way, everyone understands that each starter will get their turns regardless of "their number".
They are getting Ace-like performance from Williams, but he was never projected to be a #1 or a #2 so that is bad. If Taillon was pitching like Williams and Williams was pitching like Taillon, people would be happy based on the labeling. The team is still getting the same production.
Yes Dog, but the problem is that the Pirates didn't draft Taillon with the #2 overall pick to acquire someone no better than a middle of the rotation starter. A team needs something more than that with such a high pick. A productive Williams should be giving them a pair of high quality pitchers rather than just 1. You can say, "Who cares if Taillon can't pitch like an ace as long as someone else can." But the real issue is that Williams should be giving them a 2nd guy capable of pitching like an ace rather than substituting for the other.
Rotation numbers are a helpful communicative tool for a discussion. It's a bit like shorthand. Instead of having to express that I think Jameson Taillon is ultimately capable of winning 15-20 games with an ERA well under 3.00 and a WHIP of around 1, all I have to say is I think he's a potential No. 1 starter. For the most part people use these rotation numbers in this way, everyone understands that each starter will get their turns regardless of "their number".
They are getting Ace-like performance from Williams, but he was never projected to be a #1 or a #2 so that is bad. If Taillon was pitching like Williams and Williams was pitching like Taillon, people would be happy based on the labeling. The team is still getting the same production.
Yes Dog, but the problem is that the Pirates didn't draft Taillon with the #2 overall pick to acquire someone no better than a middle of the rotation starter. A team needs something more than that with such a high pick. A productive Williams should be giving them a pair of high quality pitchers rather than just 1. You can say, "Who cares if Taillon can't pitch like an ace as long as someone else can." But the real issue is that Williams should be giving them a 2nd guy capable of pitching like an ace rather than substituting for the other.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
103420282D410 wrote: I think this conversation is why we have to trade OF for minor league pitching talent with upside.
We need more high upside SP talent. Go into A+ ball if you have to, but get high upside arms and learn to develop pitchers better. We appear to be doing something wrong with SP organizationally...
We also appear to have a crazy good strategy at building bullpens. Need to seriously revamp rotation strategy, imo.
Agreed. Charlie Morton and Gerrit Cole come to mind. I can't help but wonder how Taillon and Kuhl might look if they were pitching for Houston right now.
I think you’ve now stated the fear we all Have: the Pirates are somehow messing or missing something that another organization is going to fix over a month AFTER they acquire our guy for a fraction of his value.
The thing about Tallion is his diminishing performance. This is no longer an off night or two, this is Tallion pitching like a back of the rotation guy. The Pirates have got to be asking themselves some tough questions.
Heck, I remember watching him pitch for team canada and dreaming of him anchoring the rotation.
We need more high upside SP talent. Go into A+ ball if you have to, but get high upside arms and learn to develop pitchers better. We appear to be doing something wrong with SP organizationally...
We also appear to have a crazy good strategy at building bullpens. Need to seriously revamp rotation strategy, imo.
Agreed. Charlie Morton and Gerrit Cole come to mind. I can't help but wonder how Taillon and Kuhl might look if they were pitching for Houston right now.
I think you’ve now stated the fear we all Have: the Pirates are somehow messing or missing something that another organization is going to fix over a month AFTER they acquire our guy for a fraction of his value.
The thing about Tallion is his diminishing performance. This is no longer an off night or two, this is Tallion pitching like a back of the rotation guy. The Pirates have got to be asking themselves some tough questions.
Heck, I remember watching him pitch for team canada and dreaming of him anchoring the rotation.
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
717A727E7B7A612422556C747D7A7A3B767A150 wrote: There is too much emphasis on the rotation numbers. I don't care how the top four guys are slotted or labeled. They will all start pretty much the same amount of games.
These numbers are just short hand for expectations.
They are a quick guide for how good you expect the pitchers to be. You want number one to be a top starter, number 2 to be close to that. Few teams have depth to have good pitchers all the way to the fourth starter. for a lot of teams the fifth starter is more than one pitcher and you are just hoping he can have good starts now and then.
These numbers are just short hand for expectations.
They are a quick guide for how good you expect the pitchers to be. You want number one to be a top starter, number 2 to be close to that. Few teams have depth to have good pitchers all the way to the fourth starter. for a lot of teams the fifth starter is more than one pitcher and you are just hoping he can have good starts now and then.
-
Wrathchild
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:23 pm
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
While I agree that Kuhl and Taillon haven't been much different, I think the feeling is that Kuhl tends to be significantly better early in games making him seem like a really good potential back bullpen piece.
I'm curious about something else, though, especially with all this Polanco/Meadows talk: Kingham has been way better than both of them (as well as Nova and everyone who has started not named Trevor Williams). Why the push to have Meadows take over in RF but no push for Kingham to take a rotation spot?
I'm curious about something else, though, especially with all this Polanco/Meadows talk: Kingham has been way better than both of them (as well as Nova and everyone who has started not named Trevor Williams). Why the push to have Meadows take over in RF but no push for Kingham to take a rotation spot?
-
Bobster21
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
4D687B6E72797273767E1A0 wrote: While I agree that Kuhl and Taillon haven't been much different, I think the feeling is that Kuhl tends to be significantly better early in games making him seem like a really good potential back bullpen piece.
I'm curious about something else, though, especially with all this Polanco/Meadows talk: Kingham has been way better than both of them (as well as Nova and everyone who has started not named Trevor Williams). Why the push to have Meadows take over in RF but no push for Kingham to take a rotation spot?
Because the team has already made the decision on Kingham whether we like it or not. But Polanco and Meadows are still on the team so that possibility exists.
I'm curious about something else, though, especially with all this Polanco/Meadows talk: Kingham has been way better than both of them (as well as Nova and everyone who has started not named Trevor Williams). Why the push to have Meadows take over in RF but no push for Kingham to take a rotation spot?
Because the team has already made the decision on Kingham whether we like it or not. But Polanco and Meadows are still on the team so that possibility exists.
-
Wrathchild
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:23 pm
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
486568797E6F78383B0A0 wrote: While I agree that Kuhl and Taillon haven't been much different, I think the feeling is that Kuhl tends to be significantly better early in games making him seem like a really good potential back bullpen piece.
I'm curious about something else, though, especially with all this Polanco/Meadows talk: Kingham has been way better than both of them (as well as Nova and everyone who has started not named Trevor Williams). Why the push to have Meadows take over in RF but no push for Kingham to take a rotation spot?
Because the team has already made the decision on Kingham whether we like it or not. But Polanco and Meadows are still on the team so that possibility exists.
That's not really an answer to my question, though. There was no consternation that I recall when Kingham was sent down so that guys with ERA+ numbers in the 80s could keep starting.
I'm curious about something else, though, especially with all this Polanco/Meadows talk: Kingham has been way better than both of them (as well as Nova and everyone who has started not named Trevor Williams). Why the push to have Meadows take over in RF but no push for Kingham to take a rotation spot?
Because the team has already made the decision on Kingham whether we like it or not. But Polanco and Meadows are still on the team so that possibility exists.
That's not really an answer to my question, though. There was no consternation that I recall when Kingham was sent down so that guys with ERA+ numbers in the 80s could keep starting.
-
Bobster21
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
57726174686368696C64000 wrote: While I agree that Kuhl and Taillon haven't been much different, I think the feeling is that Kuhl tends to be significantly better early in games making him seem like a really good potential back bullpen piece.
I'm curious about something else, though, especially with all this Polanco/Meadows talk: Kingham has been way better than both of them (as well as Nova and everyone who has started not named Trevor Williams). Why the push to have Meadows take over in RF but no push for Kingham to take a rotation spot?
Because the team has already made the decision on Kingham whether we like it or not. But Polanco and Meadows are still on the team so that possibility exists.
That's not really an answer to my question, though. There was no consternation that I recall when Kingham was sent down so that guys with ERA+ numbers in the 80s could keep starting.
I think fans wanted to Kingham to stay. But once he was sent down, what were fans supposed to do? As of right now, Meadows and Polanco are both on the team and there's plenty of discussion about it.
I'm curious about something else, though, especially with all this Polanco/Meadows talk: Kingham has been way better than both of them (as well as Nova and everyone who has started not named Trevor Williams). Why the push to have Meadows take over in RF but no push for Kingham to take a rotation spot?
Because the team has already made the decision on Kingham whether we like it or not. But Polanco and Meadows are still on the team so that possibility exists.
That's not really an answer to my question, though. There was no consternation that I recall when Kingham was sent down so that guys with ERA+ numbers in the 80s could keep starting.
I think fans wanted to Kingham to stay. But once he was sent down, what were fans supposed to do? As of right now, Meadows and Polanco are both on the team and there's plenty of discussion about it.
A Tale Of Two Pitchers
I guess if you aren't completely supportive of every good minor leaguer staying up and taking over for every underperforming major leaguer, you're just being unfair. It has to be 100% or nothing.
Kingham should be in the rotation. But the guy he should've replaced just pitched last night, and that sure won't happen...
Kingham should be in the rotation. But the guy he should've replaced just pitched last night, and that sure won't happen...