78 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

I haven't been paying as much attention to developments in advanced stats the last few years, is there a FIP like stat that actually uses batted ball data to determine how many homers would be given up in a homer neutral environment?

 

xERA (expected ERA) might be the closest?  They assign a 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR probability for each batted ball based on launch angle and exit velocity, use those to calculate the expected weighted OBA (for hitters). For pitchers they do that just the same and determine a xwOBA-against then convert that to an xERA representation.

 

https://baseballsava...rType=bip&min=q

 

Gibson's expected ERA this year is 4.68, so still solidly better than his actual ERA (5.12), but not nearly as much better as FIP (4.08) and xFIP (4.11) estimates.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'll never be on board with embracing mediocrity just because it's the #5 spot and they throw innings. I'd rather try to do better with those innings, even with a patchwork/hot hand approach. This feels like Orioles fandom baggage to me. There's no law that says we have to take what we can get though, and the worst part is we paid him $10M this year. He's our highest paid player.

 

Should the Ravens have embraced Duvernay over OBJ this off-season, given his likelihood to "stay on the field" (AKA log innings)?

 

If you can improve on mediocrity, go for it. 

 

(With a little effort, and with the $ the O's should have available to spend to add a starter either via FA or trade, and the system depth available to trade, the O's should surely be able to find a better option.)

I'd love to see the O's add someone universally looked at as a #2 starter this off-season... and go into '24 with Bradish, the acquired starter, and Rodriguez 1-3... with Kremer, Means, Wells, etc available 4-5.  That seems ideal to me. 

Gibson is a below average pitcher if you look at the metrics alone.
I think when you factor in his dependability, he becomes somewhere between below average and mediocre... even for a 4th or 5th.
I do think getting reliable mediocre innings makes a difference over a course of 162.

I also think as you and others have said in this thread, and I've said previously; you'd like to avoid having Gibson start a playoff game ideally.

My only takes here are that his reliable mediocrity have helped the regular season.
I'm not beholden to him starting Game 4 of a playoff series over Irvin, Flaherty, or Means; but i don't suspect there is much difference between any of them. 
Glad I had it wrong about Means needing to be on the roster by the end of 8/31 to be playoff eligible... hopefully he finds his change. Glad that he presents another potential option.  We will see how each of these guys pitch down the stretch.
I am skeptical that after missing all this time, that Means is going to be ready to jump in right now and be a significantly better option, but great if he is.

[mweb08]

On a team with a lot of promising young starters. That he is the 5th or even 6th best SP on this team is a good problem to have.

Well I'm not sure about a lot and that depends on what age range we're considering young, but sure, it's better that he's currently the #4 or 5 SP instead of in the top 3. Ideally, and this was not that hard to accomplish, he wouldn't be on the team because we'd have a legit middle of the rotation or better starter instead.

The win now type of pitching additions for this year have collectively been disappointing to say the least. That's Gibson, Irvin, Flaherty, Givens, and Fuji.

And yes, I realize Irvin has a lot more club control.

Thankfully, the development and dumpster diving has been tremendous to overcome that.

[mweb08]

Dependability is not all that helpful if it's dependably well below average unless the organization lacks depth and/or has a myriad of problems that make that type of performance needed. If it's the latter, you're likely in trouble anyway.

If Gibson had missed the last few months, I doubt the O's are really worse off now. Irvin could have likely replaced his innings and effectiveness level.

Now that does damage the depth, though.

Again though, the problem is that they set their sights so low when all the logic in the world suggested that they should shoot for the stars or at least the atmosphere.

[BSLChrisStoner]

His peripherals are ehh enough, that it's understandable to want to find a better pitcher. 
And yes, it's possible that Irvin could have been right there to slot in replace of Gibson and provided similar production overall.
I think its a good bet that he would have. 

If you take into account both Gibson's below average peripherals and his dependability (14th overall in ip) he's a below average to mediocre starter.  

 

If the average MLB start is 5.1... then I can only believe the average MLB start by 4th and 5th starters is not that. 
That's where I think getting regular mediocre performance vs. something abysmal provides value that I don't think is appreciated or captured by WAR or xFIP or whatever.  You get those dependable innings, and your pen isn't as torched.  You are more comfortable with using another pen arm the night before, because you expect to get some reliability in his start.  You use less arms in his outings, allowing the pen to be fresher the next night too. 

 

 

That said, I'm all for adding a legitimate front-end starter that you'd comfortably want to start in a playoff series vs someone like Gibson who you would rather not.

[mweb08]

His peripherals are ehh enough, that it's understandable to want to find a better pitcher.
And yes, it's possible that Irvin could have been right there to slot in replace of Gibson and provided similar production overall.
I think its a good bet that he would have.

If you take into account both Gibson's below average peripherals and his dependability (14th overall in ip) he's a below average to mediocre starter.

If the average MLB start is 5.1... then I can only believe the average MLB start by 4th and 5th starters is not that.
That's where I think getting regular mediocre performance vs. something abysmal provides value that I don't think is appreciated or captured by WAR or xFIP or whatever. You get those dependable innings, and your pen isn't as torched. You are more comfortable with using another pen arm the night before, because you expect to get some reliability in his start. You use less arms in his outings, allowing the pen to be fresher the next night too.


That said, I'm all for adding a legitimate front-end starter that you'd comfortably want to start in a playoff series vs someone like Gibson who you would rather not.

We're on the same page regarding the first and last paragraphs.

But again, you talk about the reliability from a 4th or 5th starter, but that's not what he was signed to be. He's just that now because of a combination of his own poor performance and the elevation of Grayson and Kremer after rough starts.

I prefer reliability from actual good pitchers though and then to take more of a chance on the backend with young guys and Wells' types. A Gibson type isn't hard to find if you those risks don't pay off.

The 82 ERA+ innings should be the backup plan. To be fair to their process, I think they actually were thinking he'd likely be closer to league average though, so again I reject the notion that this is what they expected. I don't believe it's what we expected either; there was a fair amount of optimism surrounding Gibson if I recall right. Same with Irvin. That includes me btw even though I very much wanted them to aim higher.

[BobPhelan]

We're on the same page regarding the first and last paragraphs.

But again, you talk about the reliability from a 4th or 5th starter, but that's not what he was signed to be. He's just that now because of a combination of his own poor performance and the elevation of Grayson and Kremer after rough starts.

I prefer reliability from actual good pitchers though and then to take more of a chance on the backend with young guys and Wells' types. A Gibson type isn't hard to find if you those risks don't pay off.

The 82 ERA+ innings should be the backup plan. To be fair to their process, I think they actually were thinking he'd likely be closer to league average though, so again I reject the notion that this is what they expected. I don't believe it's what we expected either; there was a fair amount of optimism surrounding Gibson if I recall right. Same with Irvin. That includes me btw even though I very much wanted them to aim higher.

Not disagreeing that they probably expected a little more (maybe something closer to xERA) but I do think he was signed to be a 4th or 5th starter. He got the opening day nod because he was the veteran not because they thought he would be an ace. Think they expected him to creep down the pecking order as the season went on as long as things went according to plan which they exceeded.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Not disagreeing that they probably expected a little more (maybe something closer to xERA) but I do think he was signed to be a 4th or 5th starter. He got the opening day nod because he was the veteran not because they thought he would be an ace. Think they expected him to creep down the pecking order as the season went on as long as things went according to plan which they exceeded.

This is what I would have said in response.

The O's didn't sign him to be the Ace, they signed him to replace Lyles. 

He got the OD nod due to 1,500+ ML innings entering the year. 

The O's didn't see him kept off the Phillies post-season roster last year, and think, "There's our ace." 
The O's didn't look at his career numbers and think he would be better than a 4th or 5th option. 

[mweb08]

Not disagreeing that they probably expected a little more (maybe something closer to xERA) but I do think he was signed to be a 4th or 5th starter. He got the opening day nod because he was the veteran not because they thought he would be an ace. Think they expected him to creep down the pecking order as the season went on as long as things went according to plan which they exceeded.

I think you're right that they didn't sign him to be an ace or even the top dog of the rotation. I also agree that they of course hoped he'd fall down the pecking order as the season progressed due to other guys stepping up.

Hoping for him to fall down the pecking order is not the same though as signing him to be the 4th or 5th starter imo. You don't sign a guy for that role and start him game one imo. More importantly, it's not fair to frame that signing that way so the signing looks better based on expectations when there was no established pecking order of any kind going into the season. Framing it that way only makes sense if there is a clear top 3 above and another guy on par with this new addition.

Regardless, the most important point is they should have acquired someone that didn't seem so out of place starting the first game of the year.

[mweb08]

This is what I would have said in response.

The O's didn't sign him to be the Ace, they signed him to replace Lyles.

He got the OD nod due to 1,500+ ML innings entering the year.

The O's didn't see him kept off the Phillies post-season roster last year, and think, "There's our ace."
The O's didn't look at his career numbers and think he would be better than a 4th or 5th option.

Of course they didn't think "there's our ace." Did you really think that's what I was suggesting?

They probably didn't think he'd be better than what a 4th or 5th option should be, unfortunately that slotted him above that on the Orioles rotation to start the year.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Of course they didn't think "there's our ace." Did you really think that's what I was suggesting?

They probably didn't think he'd be better than what a 4th or 5th option should be, unfortunately that slotted him above that on the Orioles rotation to start the year.

The point that they should have done more is fine and correct. 

The point that you have made several times that, "That's not what he was signed to be," is what I object to. 

 

He was signed to replace Lyles.  Basically carbon copy. Same price. They preferred Gibson. 
Same guy.

[BobPhelan]

The point that they should have done more is fine and correct.

The point that you have made several times that, "That's not what he was signed to be," is what I object to.

He was signed to replace Lyles. Basically carbon copy. Same price. They preferred Gibson.
Same guy.

Exactly.

I do agree with Mike that another, better option should’ve been signed as well but I was fine with Gibson as SP2 acquired.

[mweb08]

The point that they should have done more is fine and correct.

The point that you have made several times that, "That's not what he was signed to be," is what I object to.

He was signed to replace Lyles. Basically carbon copy. Same price. They preferred Gibson.
Same guy.

This is semantics so it's kinda whatever at this point. They signed a guy that they expected 4th or 5th starter production from. Yes, I agree. They were not filling a back of the rotation slot on the team though. That's pretty clear. Lyles didn't slot into the back of the rotation last year either. Defending Gibson's season though is a lot easier when framed as filling a non existent vacant at the back of the rotation so cool.

[BSLChrisStoner]

This is semantics so it's kinda whatever at this point. They signed a guy that they expected 4th or 5th starter production from. Yes, I agree. They were not filling a back of the rotation slot on the team though. That's pretty clear. Lyles didn't slot into the back of the rotation last year either. Defending Gibson's season though is a lot easier when framed as filling a non existent vacant at the back of the rotation so cool.

It's word for word what I said at the time, so it has nothing to do with reframing the signing after the fact. 

 

But overall, entering the '23 off-season... with what the O's have available at their disposable, agreed that they should aim higher.

[mweb08]

It's word for word what I said at the time, so it has nothing to do with reframing the signing after the fact.

But overall, entering the '23 off-season... with what the O's have available at their disposable, agreed that they should aim higher.

The O's didn't fill a back of the rotation slot with the Gibson signing. That should be conceded because it's really obvious. Just like I granted the point that they weren't expecting good results.

But that doesn't work well for anyone that wants to defend the signing. In order to defend the signing you have to not only go with the premise that he was signed with back of the rotation performance expectations, but you must also bend the truth to say he was signed to fill a back of the rotation slot on the team.

Otherwise, the results part of the argument falters greatly. As for the process part, it looks awful either way. It's either that they signed a guy for a role above his ability or they signed a player in a role that they didn't really need. The role that should have been a clear target was that of someone you'd want to take the ball game 1, which is what Gibson filled without the want part.

Again though, it's astounding how well they've overcome for these poor win now type pitching additions.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

We debated this all last winter. Nobody had a problem with signing Gibson to replace Lyles. Some would have preferred Lyles but that wasn't the discussion. And nobody had a problem with signing a vet that would take the ball every five days and eat up some innings.

 

He did that. Somewhere around what was expected.

 

The problem is that was one of only two SP moves they made. Him and Irvin. They did zero to try and improve the 2023 rotation. Zero. So here we are likely to win our division and having to discuss who starts a a potential game 4. 

[mweb08]

We debated this all last winter. Nobody had a problem with signing Gibson to replace Lyles. Some would have preferred Lyles but that wasn't the discussion. And nobody had a problem with signing a vet that would take the ball every five days and eat up some innings.

He did that. Somewhere around what was expected.

The problem is that was one of only two SP moves they made. Him and Irvin. They did zero to try and improve the 2023 rotation. Zero. So here we are likely to win our division and having to discuss who starts a a potential game 4.

There was no need to even replace Lyles. He should have been significantly upgraded upon.

[85Knight]

If John Means isn't atleast our 4th best pitcher by playoff time the ALCS is probably our ceiling.

[Mike B]

If John Means isn't atleast our 4th best pitcher by playoff time the ALCS is probably our ceiling.

I don't think that is the case.  No one is considering the other teams are dealing with similar issues.  The one exception is Seattle whose rotation is really good, but we have beaten them in 2 series already.  Toronto also has a good staff, but they do not seem to be able to beat good teams.  

The Orioles may very well lose a play off series, but it is going to be other teams just play better.