Scout ranks O's young pitchers: Britton, Arrieta, Tillman, Matusz

[A_K]

I guess that's why he was able to sustain them.

For portions of an abbreviated season, yes. (Said another way: "sustain" isn't the word you're looking for.)

[BuckMagic]

All this love for Arrieta is indeed baffling

Why is baffling...?

He has good stuff...do you not a gree?
If he fixes what you think is going on in his head....do you not think he could be a good starter?

[Matt P]

All this love for Arrieta is indeed baffling

100% correct. I can't stand when people base their entire opinion on a player/pitcher based on statistics.

[birdwatcher55]

Why is baffling...?

He has good stuff...do you not a gree?
If he fixes what you think is going on in his head....do you not think he could be a good starter?

My take is these guys seldom fix what's in their heads. Time to cut bait here

[birdwatcher55]

Matt you're probably in the wrong site but I totally agree with you. Too many people are fixated on stats, OPS, WAR etc. What do these guys do in the clutch?? What significant hits or innings are they delivering for you when it counts the most. That's how I measure players

[Matt P]

Matt you're probably in the wrong site but I totally agree with you. Too many people are fixated on stats, OPS, WAR etc. What do these guys do in the clutch?? What significant hits or innings are they delivering for you when it counts the most. That's how I measure players

In terms of Orioles players that I get to see over a 162 game season I base my opinions on my eyes and then use stats to either back up what I think or to change my mind on what I think. In the case of Arrieta the stats are just clearly wrong. I remember a thread where I went at bat by at bat to prove he wasn't "unlucky" and they still claim he was just unlucky.

[A_K]

I said unsustainable, not unlucky.

"Luck" is a tricky word that trips people up and generates a lot of undue disagreement.

Here's the point: on the numbers that are entirely in his control-- strikeouts, walks, home runs-- he performs pretty well. Using the history of baseball as a guide, we can say that pitchers who consistently perform well in those three areas will eventually perform well in other areas as well. People often simplify that conclusion to mean that someone is merely getting "unlucky" when their other numbers-- things like hits and runs, which depend to some degree on other players-- don't line up with those numbers that are solely within the pitcher's control.

That doesn't mean that a pitcher who underperforms his "true outcome" statistics is merely getting unlucky. He might lose concentration at certain times. His mechanics might fall apart for one really bad inning. He might pitch poorly with runners on. He might do all kinds of things that are entirely his fault, and have nothing at all to do with luck. He might also be getting unlucky, or he might be playing in front of a bad defense, or in a tough home park, or a tough division, or any number of things.

But we can say that those problems are unlikely to sustain in the long term because we know about his performance in the areas in which he is in complete control.

Basically, there's reason to be optimistic that Arrieta will eventually start putting up numbers suggested by his peripheral numbers because throughout the history of baseball, most people who put up peripheral numbers like his eventually find their way to putting up good real numbers to match them. It's not a guarantee. But it's an expectation based in historical evidence.

[A_K]

Also, I'd just like to point out that "basing your opinion on your eyes" and using stats to "back up or change" what you see is a perfectly rational thing to do. That's what I do as well. And my eyes show me a big, durable pitcher with a sound delivery, good velocity and two effective, sometimes nasty, breaking pitches. That's pretty good. And the statistics I find most reliable (FIP, K%, BB%, K/BB, HR/FB)reinforce that perception. So maybe it's acceptable to just say that we have different opinions, rather than to suggest someone who disagrees with you has an inferior process for evaluating players?

In reality, there's no such thing as a SABER nerds vs. traditional, common sense scouting approach. Everyone uses both approaches to some degree, but arrives at different conclusions. Which is fine.

[Matt P]

Also, I'd just like to point out that "basing your opinion on your eyes" and using stats to "back up or change" what you see is a perfectly rational thing to do. That's what I do as well. And my eyes show me a big, durable pitcher with a sound delivery, good velocity and two effective, sometimes nasty, breaking pitches. That's pretty good. And the statistics I find most reliable (FIP, K%, BB%, K/BB, HR/FB)reinforce that perception. So maybe it's acceptable to just say that we have different opinions, rather than to suggest someone who disagrees with you has an inferior process for evaluating players?

In reality, there's no such thing as a SABER nerds vs. traditional, common sense scouting approach. Everyone uses both approaches to some degree, but arrives at different conclusions. Which is fine.

I never suggested you have an inferior process for evaluating players. If it came off that way my bad but that was not my intention. I was just explaining to birdwatcher what I do.

[A_K]

It's not so much that I was offended as that I wanted to point out that the way you say you evaluate players is essentially the way everyone evaluates players. The idea that there are people out there who simply look at stat sheets and decide who's good and who's bad is a myth.

[Matt P]

It's not so much that I was offended as that I wanted to point out that the way you say you evaluate players is essentially the way everyone evaluates players. The idea that there are people out there who simply look at stat sheets and decide who's good and who's bad is a myth.

That is not a myth. Jordan did it last year when evaluating Arrieta.

[A_K]

That is not a myth. Jordan did it last year when evaluating Arrieta.

You're comfortable saying Jordan's opinion wasn't remotely based on what he saw when he watched Arrieta pitch? You don't think he used statistics as a way to bolster-- or at least confirm or deny-- his observation that Arrieta was a better pitcher than his results were indicating?

He made an argument with statistics. Chances are good the idea for the argument was based on an observation while watching the games.

[ofahn]

You're comfortable saying Jordan's opinion wasn't remotely based on what he saw when he watched Arrieta pitch? You don't think he used statistics as a way to bolster-- or at least confirm or deny-- his observation that Arrieta was a better pitcher than his results were indicating?

He made an argument with statistics. Chances are good the idea for the argument was based on an observation while watching the games.

Have either of you seen the new Clint Eastwood movie Trouble With The Curve? It's a good father/daughter story but the sub plot is sabre player evaluation versus traditional scouting. The consensus (which I agree with) is that the two methods are synergistic to the other and should be used in tandem.

That being said I don't think there's much doubt that Jake Arrieta 1) has plus stuff; 2) gets good results from it until he gets in trouble when; 3) he loses confidence in his stuff and nibbles his way out of the game. IMO it takes eyeball scouting to watch him and understand why all of his positive stats and impressive skills can't get the job done.

[Matt P]

You're comfortable saying Jordan's opinion wasn't remotely based on what he saw when he watched Arrieta pitch? You don't think he used statistics as a way to bolster-- or at least confirm or deny-- his observation that Arrieta was a better pitcher than his results were indicating?

He made an argument with statistics. Chances are good the idea for the argument was based on an observation while watching the games.

No, just saying one time I asked him last year and he said he didn't see the game we were discussing in terms of luck. Not saying he bases everything off it. Poor wording on my part.

[OriolesRedskins28]

In terms of Orioles players that I get to see over a 162 game season I base my opinions on my eyes and then use stats to either back up what I think or to change my mind on what I think. In the case of Arrieta the stats are just clearly wrong. I remember a thread where I went at bat by at bat to prove he wasn't "unlucky" and they still claim he was just unlucky.

I like your process for evaluation. Stats should indeed be used to supplement what your eyes tell you (assuming you watch enough of the particular player).

I do think the stats are "clearly wrong" with Arrieta in regard to him being "unlucky" or due for improvement, but I also think they indicate that he still has potential. Improvements in strikeout/walk rates are always a good thing and in the very least could portend a successful transition to the bullpen. The consensus seems to be that those of us who hold out hope for Arrieta becoming a successful SP are hoping that he fixes his mental issues in order to let his physical abilities play out. I personally wouldn't say that is likely to happen but I will continue to hold onto a sliver of hope that it does. That being said I completely understand birdwatcher and Matt's point of view that the Arrieta love is "baffling". Time will tell if some of our continued hope and faith is rewarded.

I think he will be on a short leash if/when he reaches the majors in 2013, a couple "more of the same" unraveling bad starts and that may be the last we see of him in an O's uniform (at the very least as a SP).