Add new comment

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.