Hutch and FIP

[IronLadle]

Ya but he walks so many batters that it negates the movement/velocity. Plus ground ball pitchers tend to get rocked hard when they miss up because they lead to line drives.....flyball pitchers get popups. At any rate, I'm not arguing that Hutch is more talented than Sanchez, I'm arguing that Hutch has been relatively unlucky while Sanchez has been relatively lucky. Hutch has been getting results below his capabilities while Sanchez has had a few breaks.

 

Hutch has only had 6 quality starts in 22 games started, where as Sanchez has had 5 in 11 starts. If Hutchison's IP were higher I might agree with you about his ERA, but imagine how high is ERA would be if Gibby left him in.

 

Also Sanchez cut his BB rate quite a bit in his last few starts and he hasn't walked a batter out of the pen - so he can throw strikes, Sanchez doesn't need to paint the corners to be effective. But Hutch does.

[Maahfaace]

Ya but he walks so many batters that it negates the movement/velocity. Plus ground ball pitchers tend to get rocked hard when they miss up because they lead to line drives.....flyball pitchers get popups. At any rate, I'm not arguing that Hutch is more talented than Sanchez, I'm arguing that Hutch has been relatively unlucky while Sanchez has been relatively lucky. Hutch has been getting results below his capabilities while Sanchez has had a few breaks.

 

Luck doesnt exist anymore than God does, cause and effect Mr Wonka, cause and effect.

[WillyWonka]

Luck doesnt exist anymore than God does, cause and effect Mr Wonka, cause and effect.

 

So if we flip a coin 10 times and I win 7 and you win 3, you would conclude that I'm a more talented coin flipper??

[Maahfaace]

So if we flip a coin 10 times and I win 7 and you win 3, you would conclude that I'm a more talented coin flipper??

 

Luck doesn't exist, because it is merely a subjective interpretation of past events, only after the outcome is apparent. If I flip a coin and it lands on the side I predict, one could say I was lucky, but events are determined by cause and effect (force applied, # of rotations etc.)There is no "future" luck as it is only in hindsight that it is labeled as lucky/unlucky, it is really just fabricated to help simple folk explain reason for past events.

[WillyWonka]

Luck doesn't exist, because it is merely a subjective interpretation of past events, only after the outcome is apparent. If I flip a coin and it lands on the side I predict, one could say I was lucky, but events are determined by cause and effect (force applied, # of rotations etc.)There is no "future" luck as it is only in hindsight that it is labeled as lucky/unlucky, it is really just fabricated to help simple folk explain reason for past events.

 

it is unlikely that you are able to control how many flips the coin makes before it lands or the exact amount of force you exert because you are not a freak of nature. Therefore, compared to your intentions, the outcome is luck. If I win ten coin tosses in a row, it doesn't make me intrinsically lucky, it just means that we witnessed a statistical oddity (aka luck!). Similarly, hutch's stats indicate that he's not as terrible as his ERA indicates. Maybe hutch pitches a perfect game next week because every ball happens to be hit right at fielders...or maybe he gives up 10 straight lil loopers.....either case is luck

[Jimcanuck]

there is an element of luck but there is no denying sanchez has sick down movement on a high 90's fastball..... which leads to all sort of pleasant outcomes. i hope no one is suggesting it is entirely luck, to be sure hutch has been relatively unlucky, but he's also been relatively s***

[ElNik2013]

I really like Hutchison and think he'll turn it around, or his luck will turn around. However, I remember reading an article that pointed out that he has a real problem pitching out of the stretch. I think I remember his BB% and K% being pretty bad from the stretch.

 

 

Anyway....

[RealAccountant]

We may never lose again

[Deadpool]

there is an element of luck but there is no denying sanchez has sick down movement on a high 90's fastball..... which leads to all sort of pleasant outcomes. i hope no one is suggesting it is entirely luck, to be sure hutch has been relatively unlucky, but he's also been relatively s***

 

The "luck" w/r/t Sanchez is mostly that he succeeds despite walking too many, and striking out too few, batters. This is not something that, historically, has lead to long term success for any pitcher.

[GD]

til random variation doesn't exist

[Atothe]

I learned ITT that Fastball movement is enough to say its an excellent pitch.

[Atothe]

Fausto Carmona must've had the greatest fastball in the history of baseball then

[93 Jays]

I gotta weigh in with a few points.

 

First, you can never "negate" movement and velocity by how many men you walk. It might drive you f***ing crazy as it does me, but that statement just isn't true. Second, it's simply not luck when you have a guy that walks the bases loaded and repeatedly gets out of it with his penchant for drawing groundballs off of bats. It's actually quite the opposite.

 

As a hitter, I always knew that I was going to get a lot of fastballs when there were guys on in front of me. I know in the majors, great pitchers with confidence in all of their pitches will pitch backwards, but much more often than not, a pitcher will throw more fastballs with guys on or the bases loaded. This is precisely what Sanchez did on several occasions and guys still couldn't hit his sinker with any solid contact. When you have MLB hitters, knowing what's coming, and they still can't hit it. Yeeah, you're lucky once, twice, maybe three times, but when it becomes repeated? It has absolutely nothing to do with "luck"

 

Why do you think guys still can't hit him when he comes out of the pen? His sample size isn't huge, but his numbers are top three in all of baseball in just about every category. If this kid could start with the mindset he has out of the pen? Leads me to believe there is some sort of block there on him mentally where he tries to do too much, because he is a completely different pitcher coming out of the pen.

 

Third, his K rate has nothing to do with what kind of pitcher he is. That number will rise dramatically when he gains confidence in his curve and hopefully develops another pitch. Anybody who's ever played the game will tell you he'd rather have a guy on the mound who pitches to contact. It both keeps the defense alert and keeps the pitch count down. I'd rather a guy throw a few pitches per AB and induce ground balls then a guy who strikes out 10 per game averaging 4.5 pitches or more to get the strikeout. Halladay was a classic example of a guy who pitched to contact. When he got into his prime, he struck out his share with the development of his curve, and so will Sanchez.

 

Aaron's curve is miles better than any of Hutch's secondary pitches and his fastball has more sink on it than Hutch's change. It's not luck that Hutch gets hit harder than Sanchez and it's not luck that Sanchez doesn't get hit as hard as Hutch does in the reverse. Sanchez draws much weaker contact for the sole reason that he has miles and miles more movement on his pitches and nothing "negates" that. Have Hutch throw nothing but fastballs and he gets f***ing creamed. Sanchez gets away with it because when his sinker is on, it's coming in at 96-99 MPH with more movement than most pitchers breaking balls. I don't get all the bitching and hate for Sanchez. I understand his walk rate is maddening and makes you want to shake him but he's one of ours and as a Blue Jays fan, we should be rooting and pulling for him instead of carrying on about how much he sucks.

 

He's still 4-5 years out of his prime and I'm betting that he gets it. It's simply a mental adjustment for his and the proof is his dominance coming out of the pen late in games. Him and Stroman are good friends and hopefully Marcus and the pitching coaches help him get where he needs to be. When he does, he's going to be a beast for years to come.

[93 Jays]

With all that said, I understand his high walk rate isn't a recipe for success. And I don't think he should be a starter on this team right now.

 

But I look at it quite simply as this. Hutch's lack of fastball command leads to him getting lit up and lit up with not just "bloop" hits, but like a f***ing firecracker. Sanchez's lack of command leads to a lot of walks thus far, but also loads of weak contact to get him out of bad situations he creates for himself. And he does that with a fastball that moves dramatically creating weak contact even when opposing hitters know it's coming.

 

There simply are only a handful of players that can do this and sanchez is one of them. Even with two strikes, he throws that fastball over 65% of the time and as evidenced in his last start, contact was weak to non existent.

[Jimcanuck]

The "luck" w/r/t Sanchez is mostly that he succeeds despite walking too many, and striking out too few, batters. This is not something that, historically, has lead to long term success for any pitcher.

 

that's generally true, except for his last several starts

[metafour]

97 mph Sanchez fastball misses down the middle to Texeira, all he can do is foul it back. That is the buffer zone that certain pitchers have over others.

[Boxcar]

97 mph Sanchez fastball misses down the middle to Texeira, all he can do is foul it back. That is the buffer zone that certain pitchers have over others.

 

Yes, because every fastball down the middle gets crushed, every time. Truly one of the worst posters on this board, plz go back to reddit.

[Nox]

No...if you can't comprehend this please seek medical help. I said trading a top pitching prospect for a hitter and 1 we didn't need at the time (Bryant) I would not do. Then people asked me about Mccutchen, Stanton, and Trout. Trout, I said I'd consider, Stanton I wanted to see how he came back from the hbp, and McCutchen I just don't like so I wouldn't. Never was I asked about pitching, which I would have said any good to great pitcher I would trade him for and some I would trade him ++++++++ for. So no, I never said the only asset I would consider is Trout.

 

Pokes head into forum, leaves immediately.

[Atothe]

Pokes head into forum, leaves immediately.

 

Haha

[Soft Hands]

No...if you can't comprehend this please seek medical help. I said trading a top pitching prospect for a hitter and 1 we didn't need at the time (Bryant) I would not do. Then people asked me about Mccutchen, Stanton, and Trout. Trout, I said I'd consider, Stanton I wanted to see how he came back from the hbp, and McCutchen I just don't like so I wouldn't. Never was I asked about pitching, which I would have said any good to great pitcher I would trade him for and some I would trade him ++++++++ for. So no, I never said the only asset I would consider is Trout.

 

im curious, what is there to consider about trout????? is he too good????

[reedjohnsonfan]

Well, no, they do have a point. Kyle Kendrick can go 5 innings, strike out 8, walk one, give up no homers and have an xFIP of 2.5 or whatever it comes out to. And that means he pitched well. But that doesn't mean he's a good pitcher; he still has a 5.05 xFIP on the season.

 

A bad pitcher can pitch well during a particular start, obviously. Saying "this guy had an xFIP of 3.5 in five innings, he pitched well" is a legitimate claim. Saying "this guy had an xFIP of 3.5 in five innings, he is a good pitcher because of this" is invalid. There's a distinction.

 

I've been out of town for a few days, but I have to respond here. It's a legitimate claim, likely if the guy had a good xFIP during one start he pitched well, I'm not disputing that. However it's possible a guy who has a good xFIP over 5-6 innings did not pitch as well as some of the peripherals indicate. That's what I meant and it's pretty obvious isn't it? Kendrick could've been all over the place in your example, not throwing hard, ugly breaking ball, but got a few guys looking on generous calls, etc. xFIP does not always tell the story in small samples like that, despite what some people like to think.

[GD]

No, but it's a better story than runs allowed. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement.

[reedjohnsonfan]

No, but it's a better story than runs allowed. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement.

 

Agree I wasn't really trying to start an argument. I just got annoyed one time when I was watching the Yankees game and Eovaldi was pitching really well but didn't have a great xFIP and someone pointed it out. Cheers!

 

Edit: This wasn't on Friday lol

[RealAccountant]

I hate that Hutch is starting Tuesday when the jays can just skip him and give an extra start to Dickey

 

It should be Dickey Price Burly against As who also aren't good vs LHP

[reedjohnsonfan]

I hate that Hutch is starting Tuesday when the jays can just skip him and give an extra start to Dickey

 

It should be Dickey Price Burly against As who also aren't good vs LHP

 

They wan't Price to start vs the Yankees?

[Spanky99]

No...if you can't comprehend this please seek medical help. I said trading a top pitching prospect for a hitter and 1 we didn't need at the time (Bryant) I would not do. Then people asked me about Mccutchen, Stanton, and Trout. Trout, I said I'd consider, Stanton I wanted to see how he came back from the hbp, and McCutchen I just don't like so I wouldn't. Never was I asked about pitching, which I would have said any good to great pitcher I would trade him for and some I would trade him ++++++++ for. So no, I never said the only asset I would consider is Trout.

 

ROFLMAO!!!

 

 

cf

[reedjohnsonfan]

ROFLMAO!!!

 

 

cf

 

That has to be an awful attempt to troll... it has to be, right?

[Spanky99]

That has to be an awful attempt to troll... it has to be, right?

 

No...he believes in his cripe. Apparently SP>Hitters.

[93 Jays]

Had him on ignore since my first day here. I'm not the brightest bulb in the box for sure, but there's some stuff just not worth responding to and I can't be bothered wasting my time with such obvious ignorance