osforlife wrote:I know striking out 5 batters and inning isn't good. You just said Hunter didn't strike out 5 batters every 9 innings in 2010 so I mentioned that he is striking out 5 batters every 9 innings this year. I was taking into the fact that Hunter was pitching better than Matusz. Even if Matusz has more upside, I was saying to keep Hunter because we are a first place team.
You mentioned 2010 for Hunter like it was an indication of his upside like 2010 was for Matusz. I was pointing out that although he racked up meaningless wins and had a good (and arguably lucky) ERA, he displayed no upside due to the fact that he was only striking out fewer than 5 batters per 9 innings. Yes, he's striking out 5.07 per 9 this year, but what does that have to do with 2010?
Again, I don't think (even before each of their last starts) that there was a significant difference in how well Matusz and Hunter were pitching (though it definitely looks like Matusz has safely surpassed Hunter). Even giving Hunter the slightest of edges, sending down Matusz would be short-sighted. Yes, the Orioles are in first place now (do you think they're going to be in first place in August?), but sending down Matusz when he's shown that he is able to work on getting better at the big league level is only looking at the short-term picture. Teams who are definite contenders should only make decisions like that. The Orioles need to continue to develop their upside players to see what they have in guys like Matusz, Arrieta, and Britton to decide how many pieces away from contention they really are. Pitching Hunter instead of Matusz just delays that process.