And thank goodness they sent his sorry kiester down to AAA.

Doc, I can't shout...don't know why....Hopefully I can comment - we'll see if this one shows up.

League wide, the slider has the largest platoon split of any pitch. Can some pitchers make it work? Sure. Are they the exception to the rule? Without question. Maurer's just isn't good enough to make it work. It's breaking right into the typical LH hitter hot zone. He needs the change or the curveball or he's going to have big problems with LH hitters. And his change up has been terrible thus far in 2013. 

I've come to understand you have a mild level of disdain for Cameron over at USSM, and he did just recently post about Maurer. Would seem that you were responding directly to it. He made a very clear, rationale argument why Maurer has been getting torched the way he has. Didn't seem like dogma or authoritative in the slightest. I just think you have a tendency to dismiss or try to find things wrong with his stuff at least partly because of your history with him. Anyways I do have something to add.....
You say the problem isn't the slider, its the fastball location and changing eye levels. So you're saying that a pitcher that can locate a 92-94 mph fastball on both sides of the plate, in the high and low corners will have success no matter the lack of a 3rd pitch? Seems kind of obvious doesn't it? The problem is that there are very few pitchers even at the highest level of the game that can consistently do that. Thus the need for refined off-speed pitches.
Not trying to be snide, but it seems your solution for Maurer fixing his game is the same solution you'd give to any aspiring professional pitcher. The tough part about that is you have to have plus/plus plus command to make it work. Pineda had that, plus he threw harder. Dempster has a splitter with run values that are better than any pitch Felix has thrown for the last 5 years except his change up. Maurer just flat out doesn't have Pineda's command or velocity. And he doesn't have Dempster's splitter to throw at lefties. He might some day, but that day isn't today or tomorrow. I agree with the notion that him spending more time working on his change up in the minors is best for his development. Unfortunately, the Mariners don't currently have the luxury. Erasmo and Hultzen both going down with injuries coupled with Beavan's inability to become a Major League pitcher have sealed Maurer's fate in the rotation for the near future, barring a trade.
So the nights where his command is on, and he's spotting the fastball where he wants, he will look like a rookie of the year candidate. But I fear those nights are going to be few and far between, especially against lefty heavy lineups. Hope he succeeds though. He will need to improve his change up and/or fastball command signifcantly to do so however...

From Times blog.
“I think he needs to alter his approach a little bit against lefties, in regards to what he’s throwing at certain points in time, his sequence,” Wedge said. “I think the left-handers are showing him that up here. We’ve seen that before, whether it’s young left-handed starters against right-handers, or the other way around like we’re seeing now. We’re going to be able to make that adjustment.”

Minors:
vs. RH -- 1.32 WHIP | 8.2 H/9  | 0.8 HR/9  | 3.0 BB/9  | 7.8 K/9  | .117 ISO-against
vs. LH -- 1.42 WHIP  | 9.5 H/9  | 0.4 HR/9  | 3.1 BB/9  | 8.7 K/9  | .109 ISO-against
 
Majors:
vs. RH -- 1.19 WHIP  | 8.2 H/9  | 0.5 HR/9 | 1.0 BB/9  | 8.2 K/9  | .109 ISO-against
vs. LH -- 2.08 WHIP  | 14.3 H/9 | 3.0 HR/9  | 4.5 BB/9  | 1.5 K/9  | .359 ISO-against
 
 

Same song, different pitcher:http://www.ussmariner.com/2011/03/16/pineda-isnt-ready/
Here's a snippet:
"Lefties are a whole different story, however. The slider has the largest platoon split of any pitch in baseball, and it’s generally a pretty worthless offering against opposite-handed hitters. Unfortunately for Pineda, he has to use it as his off-speed pitch against them, because his change-up is not really Major League quality at this point. When a lefty steps in, they can essentially sit on Pineda’s fastball, because they can easily adjust to the slider and pound it if it dives into their wheelhouse. He doesn’t have a weapon to keep LHBs honest."
Pineda, of course, didn't go to Tacoma and learn a new pitch. He, as Dr. D. emphatically stated at that time (and pretty much alone in the M's blogosphere, not to mention all those scouts) that Pineda had what he needed then and there. Michael's OPS vs. righties was .587 that season, Lefties hit .653.
Excuse some of us for hearing a tad of smugness when David flatly says regarding Mauer:"he’s got nothing to throw left-handed batters". It sounds exactly like: "Pineda isn't ready" - same reasoning. yes, Mauer doesn't have Pineda's fastball. But Pineda's fastball wasn't enough for Cameron at that time either.
Dr. D pretty much stood alone at the time. And he was right. In short: Get yourself two good pitches, and use them.

I understand what you are saying in regards to tactics vs. strategy. The good news is, I think I can get my position across more clearly. I am watching the first inning on mlb.tv right now, so let me go batter by batter as you suggested. First...
Mclouth:
1st pitch was painted right where Shoppach wanted it, maybe a few inches outside, didn't get the strike call
2nd pitch same pitch was called by Shoppach, Maurer sailed it outside by a foot.
3rd pitch Shoppach called for fastball on the inner 3rd, he starts it there, but it drifts over the plate. Mclouth (thankfully) takes strike 1.
4th pitch unfortunately we cant see where the location is called because the camera is zoomed in on Joe Saunders. But doubtful that Maurer shook him off considering he didn't any of the first 3 pitches and also considering that Maurer was working so fast. Simply missed his location is the best guess I can come up with. EDIT: on the replay Shoppach sets up inside, and Maurer does the same thing he hid on the previous two pitches. He didn't finish the pitch, and it sailed back over the plate.
What would you have called there instead of fastball in on the hands? After seeing Maurer miss on 2 of the first 3 locations? Backdoor slider trying to steal a strike? Slider out of the zone low? Or jam pitch slider? See the problem here? He (as in Shoppach) doesn't (and for good reason) trust his change-up, so his options are located fastball, slider to a LHB, or to break out his rarely thrown curveball on the 4th pitch of the game. When you are left with few options, and you don't throw 97 to cover up your mistakes, you have to be very precise. Not much room for error. He made an error, and Mclouth punished it.
Machado:
1st pitch Shoppach calls for a fastball on the outer 3rd, and Maurer continues his trend of not finishing his fastball. Starts middle, ends up on the inner 3rd, and up in the zone. Easy pitch to pull, especially for a guy with quick hands like Machado. It stayed fair, and was a double in the corner. Seems Shoppach is trying to let Maurer establish fastball command, but Maurer can't find it yet. And here comes the middle of the lineup.
Markakis:
1st pitch Shoppach probably noticing they are killing the fastball, calls slider. He sets up in the middle of the plate, so I'm guessing just a get me over first pitch slider. Maurer misses off the plate inside, but Markakis swings anyway, strike 1.
2nd pitch Shoppach calls for change up away, Maurer hits his spot, tailing off the plate. Markakis fouls it off weakly. First executed pitch of the night.
3rd pitch they go for a curveball, he yanks it a foot inside in the dirt, almost his Markakis in the foot. Runner moves to 3rd.
4th pitch is supposed to be a hands fastball. Maurer gets on the inner half, but low, in the lefty happy zone. Fouled off.
5th pitch is supposed to be a slider on the hands, but Maurer spikes it, (maybe because he doesn't want to hang it) runner scores from 3rd.
6th pitch was a fastball away, he missed his spot by about 8-10 inches, if you watched live, that pitch is never called a strike.
7th pitch Shoppach wanted fastball on the outer 3rd, the ball ends up in lefty heaven, smoked into right field for a single.
Very poor pitches this AB. And no they weren't a result of lousy sequencing or same eye level or lack of variety. Just plain lack of command and control.
Jones:
1st pitch get me over slider, executed well. Strike 1
2nd pitch was supposed to be slider just off the plate away, he snaps it into the dirt, and visibly shakes his head, suggesting he wasn't trying to put it in the dirt, but was supposed to be a borderline strike.
3rd pitch Shoppach calls fastball on the hands, he throws it off the plate inside. Ball 2. First pitch that I could tell he shook off Shoppach
4th pitch Shoppach sets up on the outside edge, he throws a 93 mph fastball down the heart of the plate. Jones fouls it off. A mistake pitch that gets punished more often than not.
5th pitch was his best pitch of the night so far. Slider low and away, but close enough to induce a swing. Swinging strike out.
So we have 2 executed pitches this AB, both coming on the slider. Lucky to get that far after pitch 4, but having a good slider might make it easy to cove up some of his meatballs once in a while. Still showing shaky command.
Davis:
1st pitch Shoppach calls a slider on the inside corner, he throws it off the plate inside. Again, probably over compensating because he doesn't want to hang a slider to a lefty.
2nd pitch fastball Shoppach sets up inside, he sails it a foot outside. After leaving a few fastballs in earlier AB's that are supposed to be inside corner over the plate, you gotta think that is playing in the back of his mind to Davis.
3rd pitch Shoppach calls for change up outside corner, Maurer paints it, swinging strike. Great pitch. If he throws his change like that, he'll be just fine.
4th pitch he doubles up on the change up, low out of the zone. Davis swings and misses. Another great pitch.
5th pitch another change up, this one off the plate too far outside and low, Davis watches it go by.
6th pitch slider inside, fouled off.
7th pitch, another gorgeous change up, on the outside corner, Davis fouls it off.
8th pitch is another sailed fastball not close enough to even consider swinging, ball 4
He threw 3 legitimate Major League change ups in this AB, yet his lack of fastball command still allowed Davis to take first base.
Bullpen is now warming up. Beaven, ugghh.
Weiters:
1st pitch another sailed outside fastball
2nd pitch he leaves a change up thigh high on the outside edge, Weiters fouls it off.
3rd pitch was a slider middle in that visibly didn't have any bite, a batting practice pitch. Weiters smokes it down the line.
EDIT: per gameday pitch f/x, it did have a few less inches of break compared to the sliders in previous AB's.
He then threw 2 more really nice change ups to Flaherty, 1 for a swinging strike, then a hanging slider that got smoked right at Ackley.
THE TAKEAWAY:
His fastball was awful this night, his slider flattened out a few times, and he missed with it and his curveball routinely. His change up was his best pitch in the first inning by far. And he still gave up a lot of hard contact and a walk. If he doesn't correct his fastball command, he will be in serious trouble, especially against lefties. If he throws his change up like he did tonight with average fastball command and with good slider command, which is supposed to be his best pitch, then he should be a lot better. The issue here is that he has now had a few outings where his command has been poor, suggesting that it isn't just a bad game. He seems to lack above average command presently, and it sometimes shows up as poor command. When it does, the long reliever will be up early and often, because he doesn't throw hard enough to make up for his lack of command.
Without going back and watching the previous games, I have to rely on the data that Cameron gave regarding his change up. That would suggest that the one he was throwing tonight isn't the norm for him. Maybe this means its improving, or maybe he just had a good night with it while everything else was below average. As you said, we will get to find out, because there don't seem to be any re-enforcements on the way any time soon.
I would say though that without his change up tonight, he probably doesn't make it out of the first inning. His fastball was all over the place, and his slider was flattening out and hanging presumably because he had thrown a lot of pitches in the first inning. So on a night like that, his lack of a 3rd pitch to throw to lefties will be lethal for him. Sure wish he could be down in the minors working on fastball command and refinement of his change up and slider.

He looked sick. I thought he had the flu or something. He was waking very gingerly, like his whole body hurt .

Perhaps Dave's assessment on the Pineda situation was incorrect. But where in my post did I say that Dave was right about Maurer, just as he was right about Pineda? I specifically said that Pineda has better command and better stuff than Maurer.
If you want to blame a guy for being smug and authoritative, go ahead. Maybe he warrants it some of the time. But you should do so on a case by case basis. Just because he was wrong about Pineda doesn't mean his insights into the Maurer situation are wrong. And if we recall, Pineda was dominant right out of the chute last year. Maurer has gotten pounded right out of the chute. Would seem pretty obvious that they aren't near the same pitcher at this juncture.
Lastly the whole two good pitches thing. Yes, if you can locate 96+, and you also have a nasty breaking ball, then you don't need much else. The problem with that is that there are very few guys that can legitimately do that. Some of them are in the Hall of Fame. Lots of guys have two good pitches. Very very few have two great pitches. To make the two pitch arsenal work, they HAVE to be great, not good. Pineda's fastball was bordering on great. His slider was better. And he still had a platoon split.
Randy Johnson had almost a 100 point difference in career ops, with righties ops'ing 662 compared to 571 for lefties. And he had 2 GREAT pitches. You can be effective with 2 pitches if they are great, but if you have a 3rd pitch for opposite handed batters, well, even Randy Johnson could have used that.
I guess what I'm saying is that Pineda and Johnson did just fine with two pitches. But imagine if they had that extra pitch to throw once in a while to opposite handed batters. What would the platoon splits have been?

So you're solution is that Maurer should have changed the eye level, to go high and tight, and low and away. Well watch the first three pitches of the AB and tell me what pitch you would have called if you were Shoppach. As i detailed, he missed locations on the first 3 pitches. Didn't finish any of them.
If he calls for fastball away, you're probably looking at a 3-1 count. Slider trying to steal a strike? Better not hang one. Fastball up you suggest? When? He missed to go 1-0, then he missed again to go 2-0. So you're not going up the ladder on 2-0, so you are suggesting that he go above the belt on 2-1? Well he better not miss his location because high and outside is an easy take. Fastball at the shins you suggest? He tried to paint the knees on the first 2 pitches, and missed both times.
You see what I'm getting at here? Put yourself in Shoppach's shoes. You've got a rookie pitcher who has gotten lit up a few times already who has missed with his first 3 pitches of the game. What should you call? Shoppach was trying to go with a jam pitch, hoping that Maurer would hit his glove, and if he didn't, wouldn't miss down and in. But that's what he did.
It's easy to suggest, "hey rookie, throw at different eye levels, gotta mix it up you know." But how can you do that if you're behind in the count? Especially if you have poor command? Aiming for the black is one thing. Hitting the black is another thing. When its a 2-1 count and your pitcher has poor command, are you calling for a pitch on the black? As I'm sure you understand, there just aren't easy pitch sequences to call for when your pitcher can't hit his spots.
Honestly, I think that 2-1 spot is the perfect spot for a change up, if you miss low you might get a swing, and even if you make it hittable, you might get Mclouth out in front anyways after 3 straight fastballs. The problem there is evidently Shoppach and Maurer don't trust the change up yet, as evidenced by them not bringing it out until the 4th batter of the game after it was clear that Maurer was struggling with his other 3 pitches.
Again i reiterate. The problem isn't fixed by saying, "he needs to change eye levels, mix his pitches better." No, what he needs to do is sharpen his fastball command, so he's not behind 2-0 and having to paint strikes in the corners. Or he needs to have an off speed pitch besides his slider that he can throw to righties to steal strikes.

You said, regarding Cameron, that his statements "didn't seem like dogma or authoritative in the slightest". I think the Pineda article clip proved pretty darned conclusively that Cameron was being completely dogmatic and authoritative, and probably wrong besides. He was authoritatively wrong about Pineda ("Pineda isn't Ready"), and used the same dogma and authoritative tone regarding Maurer ("he's got nothing to throw left handed batters"). In both cases, Cameron says they need to go to the minors, they are not ready for major league action. Well, we can only pine for Capuano for so long. Meanwhile, we have developed some kids who appear by successful endeavors to be perfectly capable of battling major leaguers to win ballgames.
Yes, GLS and LR, these are dogmatic and authoritative statements. And, there may be a 50% chance that, when Cameron applies his dogma to make his authoritative statements, he's wrong.

Go back and read what I wrote. I said that he was probably wrong on the Pineda analysis. I also said "If you want to blame a guy for being smug and authoritative, go ahead. Maybe he warrants it some of the time. But you should do so on a case by case basis. Just because he was wrong about Pineda doesn't mean his insights into the Maurer situation are wrong."
Point by point.
1.Can you give me some examples where he collapses on tv or in debates? I don't follow him outside the stuff he posts on Fangraphs and USSM.
2. I do like the way he approaches baseball, from a statistical standpoint. I get turned off pretty quickly by guys that "know" the game. Guys like Wedge and sometimes Baker. Sure, Baker incorporates some stats stuff into his blog, but he also speaks to grittiness and toughness, veteran leadership and things of the like being important. I've never read Baker regularly, but from the articles of his I have read, I find myself wondering what he's talking about. Don't get me wrong, I've read some of your articles where you show a disdain for the "because we can't quantify it, therefore it doesn't exist" mindset of the SABR guys. And I can understand some of that frustration. There are uncaptureable elements to the game. But that isn't proof that those things work or are important. I'm a scientifically inclined guy, as you might remember from our debate in the Tebow thread from last year.
3. So to clariy, I don't care if people say mean things about Dave or you or Baker or anybody. It's pretty hard to get me riled up. I only care when those criticisms breach what I think is the truth. In this case, how you diagnosed Maurer, and subsequently attacked "people" on the internet for being wrong. As my name states, I've been reading this site for a while, and sometimes (rarely) I feel compelled to chime in. This was one of those times. I don't post at USSM or LL or anywhere at all. I read those sites and usually agree with what they say, but not always.
FWIW, Jason Churchhill over at Prospect Insider comes with the same level of smugness and always being right that Dave does, at least in my opinion. But I don't ever hear you talk about him the way you do about Dave. Why is that? I'm guessing you don't read his stuff as much as its more centered around the Minor Leagues and high school baseball.

And yes, this is annoyance being shown as smugness. Mainly because I was never talking about the Pineda post. And I have said that now multiple times. "He may have been wrong about Pineda." I also said he sometimes he comes across as smug and authoritative.
Dogma:
1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.
So boiled down, it is a system of beliefs based on faith, not necessarily facts, laid out by an authority. Agreed?
So what part of his post was dogma? He gave statistical indicators of slider usage, of slider platoon numbers, and of Maurer's platoon numbers. He then gave more stats for his change up contact % and usage % compared against his slider. Because that wasn't complete enough, he gave even more stats. The numbers for how an at bat ends with a slider, contrasting righties and lefties.
When people give opinions based on facts and statistics, and lots of them, this isn't dogma. It's called analysis. You may agree or disagree with his conclusions, but he shows all the work in how he got there, and it makes a good deal of sense. This isn't anymore authoritative than when Doc posts about Kyle Seager being a best bet based using "his" analysis. They might have different ways of getting to their opinion, but they both get there on how they best see fit.
He didn't just say as you are implying, that "Maurer will fail with his current repertoire because I also thought Pineda would fail." He gave thoughtful, detailed analysis as to why he thought so. And that is the difference between dogma and analysis.

LR - I am a relative newbie to this site and I thoroughly enjoy the interaction with Dr D, Gordon, Moe, Spec, etc precisely because they are not, repeat not, dogmatic. So, please, don't be dogmatic about arguing what is dogmatic. You will miss what this entire site is about. This site is not about winning arguments by putting other people down. This is a wonderful site to explore ideas and themes about the Mariners and baseball, in a thoroughly entertaining way. You sound like a very smart person who could add to the site's depth of discussion. The way to do that is to relax; don't try to win arguments for the sake of winning them. Welcome aboard.

Just to clarify, I didn't say I think he does or doesn't debate well or fairly. I was honestly hoping someone could show me some proof that he melts in debate or TV settings. I'm not ambitious or enthused enough to go back and read some history about a guy that writes about baseball. I'd rather do something else.
Regarding Churchhill, i disagree. When he chimes in the comments sections of his articles, it is almost always to "correct" someone who's opinion is wrong. And it is almost always done shrewdly and curtly. He deals with his fair share of dumb commenters, but isn't that what comments sections on blogs are for lol? And when his opinion is shown some flaws, I've seen him leave a debate. But now we're talking about Churchhill in a Cameron thread. Where is this going?
I guess I'll close with this. Dave can be abrasive and tries to be the smartest guy in the room. I'm sure he's probably heard this before. He's probably even aware it. But I guess I haven't seen or heard of attempts to silence competing opinions. In fact, I've seen comments in some of his threads where people challenge him, or think he's wrong about something. If censorship were in play, I don't think I would remember seeing this happen. But maybe it has in the past, I don't know.
I think that when you come from a statistical background, then either something is true or it isn't. It can lead to a debate style that seems like marginalization is the norm. I'm not saying arrogance is appropriate, just that when he marginalizes someone, its because people like him see the world in black and white. That philosophy has gotten him far, and using it in his baseball analysis has produced some good insights and predictions. It's led to bad ones too. But in terms of baseball decisions and analysis, I'd take a front office with all Dave Cameron's over a front office with all Geoff Baker's every time.

Dogma, or your own eyes? All the stats supposedly backing up the assertion that a righty, even one with a fastball as good as Pineda's (which Cameron said all the lefties would be "sitting on") meant nothing the very next day when Aaron Harang, the #5 starter plucked off the scrapheap, went out and shut down the blazing hot Oriole left handed hitters armed with nothing but a low wattage fastball and a, ahem, slider. Lucky? Maybe. But I have a hunch Harang, who was at one time a top NL pitcher, didn't just wake up yesterday morning and say to himself, "Hmmm..know what, I'm going to try something new tonight and go with just my fastball and slider."
Luck! Cameron might say. Small sample size! His sychophants may chime in. It won't
last. And yet, we saw it happen. With our own eyes. Lordy! it was a miracle!
Hey LR, I'm a little smart alecky, but I really like you and what you brought to the discussion. Your breakdown of Maurer's outing, batter by batter - top notch. Don't be a stranger!

LR - most of the regulars on this site (and Mstalk and MC) are guys (and gals) who are successful in their lives because they are analytical. We have doctors, engineers, grad students, entrepreneurs, writers, and so on, that have faced enough difficult problems in their own work that they know there is almost never a single answer, and that when people are involved, a less "correct" answer often gets better results.
Having worked on Admiral Rickover's staff, I have worked with very bright people, both young and experienced, under a very demanding leader. Every one was picked from the top of the class from the best engineering schools, or selected from the brightest and most successful officers and NCOs from the fleet. HE often wasn't that civil, but he ALWAYS listened. He once said in my presence that stupid ideas were O.K. because they lead to discussion where the real solution might be found. And when people care AND are well-qualified to speak by either background or intense interest AND listen to all alternatives with an open mind, solutions will be found. But even then, are they always the "correct" one, or just the one that got us by? Rickover's genius was in always pushing for the best solution possible. SSI's genius is in exploring whether the Ms solutions are the best.
We don't have a direct input to the Ms front office, but I believe in discussing the issues as if we did, as if Jack reads our comments and analysis and uses them with his staff in trying to find the best solutions. Even if that is not so, still, the appropriate level of respect should be shown. I believe Dave Cameron does not do that, and comes across as a smart-ass grad student who is just smarter than everyone else.
I suspect many (if not most) of SSI/MCs regulars are at or above his level (I suspect you'd find a number of National Merit Scholars, 1500+ SATs, and cum laude or better degrees on resumes). But our focus is on trying to analyze the problems and discuss solutions that might work, again, as if we DO have an input, and that other serious, dedicated people are listening. That includes occasional jokes and parody (BTW, Lonnie's current set of "conversations" is hilarious), but is not out of line with what you'd find in a serious office doing serious work.
Civility is showing respect for others by the tone of your interaction. It is often hard to learn, but definitely worth learning. I think Dave Cameron needs to. Personal opinion.

LR, let me say that I think you have brought a lot to the table.
When people give opinions based on facts and statistics, and lots of them, this isn't dogma. It's called analysis. 
It is very easy to start out with an assumption and then subconsciously and unintentionally find statistical evidence that backs up that assumption.  I see this with some frequency in the medical literature.
I'm ot saying that that's what Cameron has done here with Mauer.  However, the presense of stats alone does not mean elimination of bias.  I can tell from the high qualit of your posts that you already know that.  I'm not trying to be obnoxios.  True analysis starts with naked data and then forming conclusions.

I'm not claiming that the discussion started yesterday. I'm claiming that his article about Maurer was posted yesterday, and should stand independent of his opinions on other people and be judged on its own merits.
You want to say, well he was wrong about Pineda, and he is drawing the same conclusions about Maurer using the same logic. Well not exactly. Go back and read the Pineda article. It was based more off his having watched Pineda pitch in spring training and because of the historical difficulties pitchers like him have. With Maurer it's some of that, but way more statistically backed than Pineda's article.
We have information on how big leaguer's are dealing with Maurer after his first handful of starts. He is using the data from those starts and conventional wisdom about fastball/slider pitchers to draw a conclusion. With Pineda it wasn't the same type of analysis.
You are claiming that baseball doesn't work that way. That you don't need a very good third pitch to be a good starting pitcher. Prove it. Show me the platoon splits for guys that throw only fastball/slider. When guys say that the slider has the biggest platoon split in baseball, do you think they are just making that up? This is where the circles start with me. Yes, if you are have plus command of a 95+ fastball to go along with a great secondary pitch, then yes, you can be successful. But considering 99.whatever% of pitchers on earth don't possess that, including Maurer, what are we really arguing about?
Bottom line is this. Maurer isn't physically talented enough to get by on two pitches. Pineda was. Pineda also won't throw 95+ for very long, maybe even now. When he loses some zip, he will start to need other weapons. Dave was wrong about Pineda, kind of. You'll note he never said that Pineda can't succeed. Just said he's not ready and would prefer to have him polish the change for a few months and be totally prepared instead of having to learn in on the fly. Di
With Maurer he is giving analysis after seeing him throw a few starts. And its not like Pineda threw sub 3 era and fips. No doubt he had a very good rookie season, but lets not forget what he posted. Good, not great stats. Answer me this, just to put this whole 3 pitch vs 2 pitch debate to rest. If you were a betting man, would you lay 1 to 1 that Pineda would've posted better number with a plus or above average change up? Or would you bet his numbers would be the same or worse? Did he NEED the change up to be effective? No. Would he have been a better pitcher with it? That seems to be the easiest way to clear up this whole debate.

I've bent over backwards to tell the folks on here that I agree about Cameron being smug and authoritative sometimes. I've also tried to convey that I don't think he was being so in his article about Maurer. Period, end of story.
I can respect the collective brain power or some of the posters on here, as I've been a witness to some of the discussions here first hand. Some are rushing to Doc's defense in this case, and that's to be expected. I'm the new guy, I came in defending Cameron on enemy territory, I get it. But let's just please analyze the article for what it is. If we want to argue about whether or not Maurer can stick, and what he needs to improve on to do it, let's do that. Let's not bring back an article that an adversary wrote 2 years ago that shows how dogmatic his process is. (Which I disagree with, but that isn't the issue any longer) Argue/defend the position based on data and reason, not personal issues with the author. I've been trying to defend the position that Maurer needs work, and I've been pretty specific and thorough explaining how I see it. Let's just talk about that.

Is anyone really arguing that the slider, league wide, doesn't have the worst platoon splits of any pitch? I mean, that's not dogma or something Cameron made up. It's a verifiable fact. A slider can make even a good same handed hitter look absolutely stupid - envision Adrian Beltre flailing away at that low and away slider about 1,200 times in an M's uniform. It can prolong the career of a marginal RH pitcher, who can make a living throwing sliders out the pen (hello Josh Kinney). The physics just make it tough - even contact will result in a foul ball much of the time.
But a slider to an opposite handed hitter is breaking right into the bat, assuming it's in the zone. The physics aren't in the pitcher's favor. The pitcher can try and hit the outside corner with it but the Umps rarely give that one. Come inside you run the risk of hitting the batter...or leaving it right in the hottest of hot zone.
Now, saying that no pitcher can succeed with a FB/Slider attack because of the platoon split is dogma. We've seen it work. Of course, it's also dogma to say that any pitcher can succeed with a FB/Slider attack just because Johnson on Pineda did (or because Harang can make it work once every four starts). Johnson and Pineda had the best FBs and best Sliders that we've ever seen M's starters throw, And we've seen a ton of pitchers wash out of the rotation and into the pen when they only had those two pitches in their arsenal. The league is littered with those guys (Kameron Loe). It's not that it can't work, it's more that it's incredibly difficult to make it work as a starter.
I like Maurer but he's earned that 6+ ERA by getting slaughtered by three different lineups where the opposing manager had the LH bats to stack up against him. It's not exactly a coincidence that they did that and he's going to see every single LH batter that every single opponent has on the roster from here on out until he proves that he can handle them. Believe that. I would do it if I was an opposing manager and I'll bet y'all would do it too. ;)

Enemy territory? Seriously? Wow.

So let's put the horse before the cart.
Pitcher A has splits that read as follow:. 250/.304/.359 versus righties, and 359/.424/.717 versus lefties. Over 17 and 12 innings respectively. His bb/k ratio is 2:16 righties, 6:2 lefties. Ok, there is the naked data. Now I ask you to draw a conclusion. Take a moment, lol.
Now armed with this data, we can see a problem emerging for Maurer. He can't get lefties out. So we try to figure out why. I gave a pitch by pitch breakdown somewhere in this thread while watching in live. And others have pointed out the HISTORICAL ineptitude of sliders against opposite handed batters, while also showing Maurer's usage of said slider against said batters, and the results it has produced. My conclusion is that he lacks fastball command, that his slider wasn't very good that day and has been inconsistent from start to start, and that his change up was the only pitch working. Before that start we had data suggesting that his change up was his worst pitch of the 3, and that lefties were killing his slider. Cameron detailed all of that succinctly. This shouldn't be an issue of figuring out why he is struggling. Seems pretty cut and dried.
I'm just pointing out that some of Doc's backlash may be because he has a disdain for Cameron, and that Dave hasn't confessed enough to his liking to being wrong about Pineda. So then the word dogma gets thrown around willy nilly. This isn't dogma. This is analysis. Some here don't like it. I'm not trying to get caught up in all of that. Let the analysis speak for itself.

LR - there are no enemies here; just differing points of view that are respected as long as they can be supported. And Doc certainly doesn't need someone like me to rush to his defense - he's forgotten more about baseball analysis than I have learned. Stick around and enjoy - you'll be exposed to some new and insightful ideas.

that doc doesn't like Dave and his process? I mean ive posted here maybe 10-20 times, and I've known that for a few years. He routinely writes articles about "Big Blog" and the attitude of its main writer. Not exactly a secret.

Just went and checked out Dempster. I really hope Maurer doesn't have the same results that Dempster did his first couple years. Dempster didn't have decent results until his 8th year in the league. That was the year he got moved to the bullpen. And by decent I mean decent. He didn't find success in the rotation until his 11th year on the big league, which is coincidentally around the time when he started throwing more change up/splitters instead of being a 90% fastball/slider guy. So more food for thought...

I did all of the at bat analysis watching in live, not using gameday specifically so you can see catcher glove locations, shakeoffs, etc. You only responded to the first ab to Mclouth, and when I pressed you up above for further clarifications, you floated around to different conversations. That's not fair. You asked that I do a detailed ab by ab analysis, so that I could see the issue on your terms. I did that, and you ignored or didn't read 80% of it. I responded completely on your terms, and am now just getting the brush off. So i don't appreciate you saying that I'm "out-sitting" you. I know I wrote a novel up there, but that's what you asked for.

Why look only at a SSS in MLB when Maurer is brand new (and struggled with FB command in some starts) while ignoring minor league splits? The MiLB splits don't support a problem with LHB. An Analysis would consider that data too would it not?

Comment 14 is the one i am referring to.