OnlyBucs

04372B2A2921172A312D3631202C2B450 wrote: I think Glasnow's control issues are being exaggerated. Overall:



2012: 4.0 BB/9 (38 innings)

2013: 4.9

2014: 4.1

2015: 3.5

2016: 4.9



And: 2016 breaks down to:

April: 3.0 BB/9

May: 4.6

June: 6.9



That June number has to be viewed in conjunction with 2.3 H/9, of course.  Overall, you'd have to say that he doesn't have some sort of pathological wildness, because he made steady progress for several years and was actually down to a pretty normal level. 



Edit: unrelated to the above, but the guy also hasn't given up an unearned run all year. 










I think with him averaging under 6 ip/start, he would only be a marginal improvement over Locke, Liriano and Niese. So even if guys aren't able to hit him hard, he's going to have a low ceiling at the major league level because of the high pitch counts.



In the long run, I'm sure that Glasnow could work out his problems at either level. It's just that there's a case either way about whether or not the guy should be a Pirate right now.

30020E0E1A280B020F0A0502630 wrote:



Though I wonder what this current version of Francisco Liriano would do against AAA hitting.  My guess is that he'd skewer them.



It seems strange for people (I'm including myself here) to question Liriano's inclusion in the rotation because he walks too many guys, while calling for Glasnow to come up despite him walking too many guys.  What's the point if we are calling up Fransisco Liriano Junior?  I don't know if that's the case but it seems odd to want it both ways. 


Backup Quarterback syndrome.

744D555A5D4A7B57380 wrote: I think both would help but I am more convinced the time for Glasnow is now.  if Bell is fielding the position at an above average level then why not. 


Bell is probably ok at 1B, not sure about above average.



If the Pirates are going to wait for Glasnow to get his walks under control, they are going to lose him on waivers when he is out of options. Guys can be successful in the majors while giving up tons of walks. Especially pitchers with his swing and miss stuff.

7C575B5257560C01380 wrote: Definitely think if they don't call him up pretty soon, they will hold him back until Sept and then until June 2017 to avoid Super Two. It won't be long until the "it's not worth losing the extra year of control over the 2 months of him being up" crowd comes out to play.   
I'm part of that crowd, but I think the situation has changed.  Our lineup is too good and the pitching has been too bad to wait long enough to avoid super-2, and Glasnow has had all this extra time now to work on his control. As soon as he shows he has the control he needs, we need to bring him up.  Sometime this year would be ideal, to get him acclimated and ready to start next season.



However, if his control issues continue, I think we have 2 options :  keep him down and continue to work with him, or bring him up and let the big club's staff work with him.  The control issues aren't something we can handwave away, so the only thing that remains is how to deal with them.  I wouldn't bring him up to 'take his lumps' until I thought he has all the tools he needed to succeed - then you can bring him up and let him work things out.  I wouldn't bring him up to learn CONTROL unless they thought Searage and company can give him a different perspective that will click for him.



We need pitching. I hope Glasnow's last start with one walk is the beginning of good things, and we can bring him up soon, so he'll be a little seasoned for the beginning of next season.




How exactly is he going to show the control he needs this year? he would have to put together a string of starts where he only walks 2 batters or less. By the time he does that, it will be August.



The control issues are something you can hand wave away actually. There is a long history of pitchers that have had some success with high walk totals. Glasnow is not a pitch to contact pitcher with high walk totals. Guys are barely making any contact with his pitches, let alone solid contact.

565B5A6D7B7B777E7976180 wrote: Definitely think if they don't call him up pretty soon, they will hold him back until Sept and then until June 2017 to avoid Super Two. It won't be long until the "it's not worth losing the extra year of control over the 2 months of him being up" crowd comes out to play.   
I'm part of that crowd, but I think the situation has changed.  Our lineup is too good and the pitching has been too bad to wait long enough to avoid super-2, and Glasnow has had all this extra time now to work on his control. As soon as he shows he has the control he needs, we need to bring him up.  Sometime this year would be ideal, to get him acclimated and ready to start next season.



However, if his control issues continue, I think we have 2 options :  keep him down and continue to work with him, or bring him up and let the big club's staff work with him.  The control issues aren't something we can handwave away, so the only thing that remains is how to deal with them.  I wouldn't bring him up to 'take his lumps' until I thought he has all the tools he needed to succeed - then you can bring him up and let him work things out.  I wouldn't bring him up to learn CONTROL unless they thought Searage and company can give him a different perspective that will click for him.



We need pitching. I hope Glasnow's last start with one walk is the beginning of good things, and we can bring him up soon, so he'll be a little seasoned for the beginning of next season.




How exactly is he going to show the control he needs this year?  he would have to put together a string of starts where he only walks 2 batters or less. By the time he does that, it will be August.



The control issues are something you can hand wave away actually.  There is a long history of pitchers that have had some success with high walk totals.  Glasnow is not a pitch to contact pitcher with high walk totals.  Guys are barely making any contact with his pitches, let alone solid contact.


Actually, that list is very short. According to BR there are a total of 5 pitchers from 1901 to 2016 with careers of a minimum of 100 career decisions, 90% of games as a starter, with a career ERA at or below 4.00, with a career BB/9 greater than 4.



But that's using 100 career decisions with an ERA under 4.00 to define success. You'll need a BR subscription to find the names, though it's obviously headed by Nolan Ryan.



Maybe the Pirates know what they are doing. Maybe they see the tremendous upside, but realize the risk, especially looking at the history of the metrics.

Randy Johnson had career walk rate of 3.3 per nine innings. But he didn't get below 4.8 until he was 29 years old. was 6.8 and 6.2 when he was 27 and 28.



who knows if his career would have been better or worse if Seattle waited until he had better control?

Where's the list of successful major league pitchers who had a minor league walk rate higher than 4 per 9 ip?

Where is the list of national league pitchers with sustained success striking out less than 6.5 per 9IP?



We have 2 guys in the rotation who can't get over that tremendous hurdle, even facing the opposing pitcher 2-3 times a game.

68616978760C0 wrote: Where is the list of national league pitchers with sustained success striking out less than 6.5 per 9IP?



We have 2 guys in the rotation who can't get over that tremendous hurdle, even facing the opposing pitcher 2-3 times a game.










Greg Maddox and Tom Glavine were decent.

707971606E140 wrote: Where is the list of national league pitchers with sustained success striking out less than 6.5 per 9IP?



We have 2 guys in the rotation who can't get over that tremendous hurdle, even facing the opposing pitcher 2-3 times a game.








That list is here. It is 85 pitchers long, again defining success as 100 career decisions (longevity), career ERA at or below 4.00 (somewhat successful), and a K/9 at 6.5 or less.