OnlyBucs

4D6B6A7D6B7B080 wrote: Dominant numbers.  He never had a stretch of that many innings here with those results. 


Because we never gave him a chance to start this year. >:(




in some ways that is Glasnow's fault.  He was going to be out of options and it was unlikely he was going to make the starting rotation at the beginning of the season.  He was tried in the bullpen to put less pressure on him.  If he would have shown better control against major league hitters last season he may have come into spring training this year with a shot at being in the rotation.
Not in some ways, it is Glasnow's fault. He didn't perform when given the chance. He had not shown that type of dominance in Pittsburgh and probably never would. I think it was time to turn the page. Good for him if he figures it out, time will tell. I personally don't think he is going to be consistently good.

I'm in agreement. I don't really care if Glasnow realizes his potential other than, if it happens, and the sample needs to grow substantially, our development team needs to make sure we aren't missing on these arms regularly. I don't know how to measure that other than to watch what happens when the leave.



Edinson Volquez pitched worse after he left. Cole and Morton got better, but it took Morton over a season.

313D34392E72283531332834256E6C1C3B315C0 wrote: Dominant numbers.  He never had a stretch of that many innings here with those results. 


Because we never gave him a chance to start this year. >:(




If there's one thing Glasnow got here, it was certainly chances to face ML hitters.



This is a tiny sample so far, but it's interesting to watch

4D4F555345200 wrote: Particularly with Glasnow, who seemed to be gaining confidence in his last performances in Pittsburgh. It could just be an extenuation of that.


Could be.  Wrathchild pointed out his FIP many weeks ago and his defense was killing him last couple times out.   He was definitely getting better, albeit in low leverage roles.  It could be a fluke.   He's had his share, though I don't recall a string of 12-15 innings he's ever faired better stats wise.



We all know how he has a tendency to totally blow up, so this may mean nothing. He's 1 glasnow-esque outing from his ERA over 5 (or 6) again

I don't understand what appears to be the prevailing perspective that the Pirates traded Glasnow because they wanted to dump Glasnow. They traded Glasnow because that is what it took to get Archer. For those of you that seem to think Glasnow had fallen behind the likes of Kingham and Holmes, you should seriously ask yourselves if the Rays would have even entertained a trade where Glasnow was substituted for one of them. The answer is clearly no. Glasnow didn't get to make starts because he stunk in that role last year and the Pirates had to decide what they wanted to do with him. They decided (correctly in my opinion) to have him stay in MLB in a relief. This was to gain what it took to be an effective starting pitcher in MLB, not to stay in a relief role. When starts opened up due to injury, Glasnow wasn't in a position to make starts. He hadn't started all year. I think it's as simple as that.



With regard to development, I don't agree he was developed improperly. He was unique in that he kept dominating AAA but hadn't been successful in MLB prior to this year. He was pretty successful in Pittsburgh's bullpen this year, though. He had two ERA killing outings early in the year but had pitched to a 2.95 ERA since May 8th until he was traded. His FIP and xFIP were very good. As good as Archer's. So, to say he hadn't fulfilled promise in my opinion is very premature. I think the Pirates believed he was on the right track. But, so did the Rays. I personally would not have made that trade because I'm not convinced Archer is particularly good anymore. I think Glasnow has been trending up all season and Archer has been trending down for a few seasons. I hope it works out for us, but I thought the trade was a loser. Not because of what Glasnow has done for a few innings in Tampa, but because of what the two pitchers had been doing before the trade.

0D283B2E32393233363E5A0 wrote: I don't understand what appears to be the prevailing perspective that the Pirates traded Glasnow because they wanted to dump Glasnow.  They traded Glasnow because that is what it took to get Archer.  For those of you that seem to think Glasnow had fallen behind the likes of Kingham and Holmes, you should seriously ask yourselves if the Rays would have even entertained a trade where Glasnow was substituted for one of them.  The answer is clearly no.  Glasnow didn't get to make starts because he stunk in that role last year and the Pirates had to decide what they wanted to do with him.  They decided (correctly in my opinion) to have him stay in MLB in a relief.  This was to gain what it took to be an effective starting pitcher in MLB, not to stay in a relief role.  When starts opened up due to injury, Glasnow wasn't in a position to make starts.  He hadn't started all year.  I think it's as simple as that. 



With regard to development, I don't agree he was developed improperly.  He was unique in that he kept dominating AAA but hadn't been successful in MLB prior to this year.  He was pretty successful in Pittsburgh's bullpen this year, though.  He had two ERA killing outings early in the year but had pitched to a 2.95 ERA since May 8th until he was traded.  His FIP and xFIP were very good.  As good as Archer's.  So, to say he hadn't fulfilled promise in my opinion is very premature.  I think the Pirates believed he was on the right track.  But, so did the Rays.  I personally would not have made that trade because I'm not convinced Archer is particularly good anymore.  I think Glasnow has been trending up all season and Archer has been trending down for a few seasons.  I hope it works out for us, but I thought the trade was a loser.  Not because of what Glasnow has done for a few innings in Tampa, but because of what the two pitchers had been doing before the trade.


I agree with a lot of what you said. The problem is, Pittsburgh seemed to have soured on him, from many perspectives. It is quite clear that the fan base was done with him. This board was largely done with him as he had become the punchline of losing. The at large fanbase and media was done with him. I think it was largely because he was not the savior that many expected him to be. He did not hit the majors as Syndergaard and Degrom had done.



The FO and management had clearly soured on him (IMO, way too soon). He struggled last year and was (appropriately, IMO) put in the bullpen to start this year. However, they simply left him there to rot this year. He was never given the chance to start again when vacancies arose. He was never allowed to pitch in higher leverage spots out of the bullpen. Despite the numbers that you cited, his role never changed and we basically don't know what we had with him. TB capitalized on that and grabbed him and we traded low.



It is a guess that TB wouldn't have traded Archer without Glasnow being included. Some here and elsewhere around Pittsburgh thought he was a throw in. I would have hoped that we could have gotten the deal done without Glasnow (or Keller). Though, as I have written elsewhere, looking at how Glasnow was used here this year, it is pretty easy to see that he would never have gotten a chance here. He was clearly behind every starter all the way down to Holmes. They added more power bullpen arms so that he was expendable there. They decided Glasnow wasn't effective for them. I think they missed. We will see.

He has a 2.3 bb/9 through 12 innings.



He had a 5.5bb/9 through 56 innings with us this year.



Why the profound difference, and is it sustainable? 

Glasnow makes for interesting discussion. Obviously, his star had considerably dimmed with the Pirates. His 2016 AAA stats were electrifying other than the very significant walk rate of 5 per 9 IP. He was expected to be part of the 2017 rotation. No one expected him to dominate in his first year but neither did anyone anticipate the disastrous ERA of 7.69 and WHIP of 2.016 in 13 starts which earned him a trip back to AAA. Out of options and reluctant to use him, he was treated mostly like a Rule 5 guy in the BP this year and 2 terrible outings in his first 8 games left him with a 7.71 ERA. His 2.95 ERA since then did not gain the confidence of TBMTIB, probably because during the time of that 2.95 ERA, he also amassed an alarming 22 walks in 39.2 IP. His bullpen work had consisted mostly of 2-3 inning stints in low leverage situations so he was passed over for spots starts that went to Kingham or Holmes.



Just as the Pirates knew there was a big upside in there somewhere but might never be realized, the Rays were interested in taking a flyer on him. But I suspect they hedged their bets by making Meadows and the PTBNL the key pieces of the trade. TB has no chance at a WC so they've got nothing to lose by taking a good look at Glasnow. They've been stretching him out with starts of 3, 4 and 5 innings increasing the pitch count each time. He's rewarded them with a 2.25 ERA made possible by a WHIP of 0.750 as he's yielded just 6 hits and walked just 3 in his 12 IP. For the Bucs this year he gave up only 47 hits in 56 IP but another 34 walks always had him pitching with runners on base. So the primary difference is the walk rate but with only 12 IP, it's too soon to tell if he's corrected the wildness that held him back with the Pirates. I can't fault the Pirates for the way they handled him given his results. And maybe his wildness was largely a confidence issue solved by a change of scenery while learning another team trusted him with a bigger role than the Pirates were giving him. On the other hand if TB has figured out in just 3 starts how to curb the wildness the Pirates couldn't cure in years, then there's a problem with the Pirates' development. But we don't yet know if that's the case.

Lengthy Q&A with Tyler Glasnow:

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pira ... 1808100108



They gave me so many opportunities, and I didn’t show them what I could do. It was bittersweet, but it definitely is a good chance for me to grow. … They didn’t really have a choice. They needed to get good starting pitching, and I wasn’t that in 2017.



The Pirates talked about it too. It was all the same stuff. The Pirates knew that up in the zone is definitely effective, but I needed to figure out a way to execute it.

4D6C644D666E090 wrote: I think we are seeing how Uncle Ray and the entire Bucs pitching gurus missed the boat with Glasnow.  Instead of working with him to harness his big tall frame and allow him to pitch how he feels best they insisted on their low ball pitching in order to get the ground ball with a less than good infield defense.  Tampa is allowing Glasnow to pitch with his strengths.  Uncle Ray and the Bucs need to think outside that low in the zone pitching philosophy when necessary.




To go a step further than that. Hitters are being taught a different launch angle and they fest on low fast balls. Think about last year when the bus had Glasnow trying to fill the bottom of the zone with low FB's. His velocity was mostly 92-94. They killed him . Very very few swings and misses.



TB on the other hand teaches and prefers the high FB. Which BTW is the perfect pitch to a batter trying to hit balls with the new launch angle.



There is no doubt you will soon see 3 aces that were ex-bucs . Cole , Morton and Glasnow. I also will add that it looks like Keller has hit a bit of a brick wall. In summary I would say the Pirates have the wrong pitching philosophy and also some issues with getting some great prospects "over the hump."