Brian Matusz

by FanBall on Oct 13, 2008 12:57 AM EDT

You won't see the word masterful in the article, but on the MILB front page, they do say that Matusz was 'masterful': http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081011&content_id=3611706&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Umm... then you read this:

"Matusz (1-0) did not disappoint in his first taste of pro action. He struck out one and walked one while throwing 45 pitches, including 26 strikes."

Granted he retired the first 7 batters he face, but 26 strikes versus 19 balls is hardly a masterful performance. Anyway, good work on the outs at least. Sickels is rating him very highly so far.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'll be very curious

How Matusz turns out. As good as he is, I still, gut feeling, nothing to base it on other than what the reports on his stuff have been, think that he is more of your 2/3 type lefty instead of the front of the rotation type some have made him out to be.

by toonsterwu on Oct 13, 2008 2:20 AM EDT reply actions

I dont think all that many

are really making him out to be a #1. I think the consensus is that his ceiling is 2/3.

by alskor on Oct 13, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

I have a broad question

When people rank pitchers as a 1, 2,3,4,5 how do the rankings actually work. Are the top 30 pitchers 1’s? and so on down the list, or is a 1 dependent on being a dominant pitcher, thus there may be less that 30 true #1s in baseball.

by Birdfan01 on Oct 13, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions

it's subjective

there isn’t really an objective way to rank it. I guess, when you speak about 1’s, often times, the reference is to dominant guys. Some will often say “true 1’s/true aces” which often refers to the top 10 or so pitchers in the game.

No real exact way to measure it. What I should’ve said, instead of 2/3, is that I still think Matusz is more a mid-rotation lefty instead of using numbers to signify things.

by toonsterwu on Oct 13, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Agree

I meant top 10/15 pitchers in baseball.as #1. I usually shy away from numbers, but when I respond to a numbers question I’ll use them and then try to clarify what I mean.

People DO use number one on their team as a “#1 starter” all the time… that’s moronic, though. The definitions would all run into each other and not make any sense if you consistently used that method.

by alskor on Oct 13, 2008 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Answer

I’d say that for classification purposes that when someone say someone is a potential #1 it generally means that he is in the top 15 or so #1’s in the game…a TRUE #1 as it were. Everybody doesn’t have one of these but most everyone has an idea who the top 15 guys are, or should at least.

So if someone says a guy is a potential #1/#2 (which you don’t hear lot btw) I’d take it to mean he has the potential to be somewhere between the 15th and 45th best starter in the game, the lower half among #1s and the top half of #2s. Etc, etc for 2/3, 3/4, 4/5.

Makes sense also when somebody desribes someone as being a 5th starter because the 120-135 th best starters have some value and there are a TON of guys trying to crack spots 135-150. I assume they mean a SOLID #5 starter.

At least that is how I take it to mean and it makes some sense. It IS subjective though like the fella below says. This makes it a little more defined though I think.

by casejud on Oct 13, 2008 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions

TO me the best way to describe this is using examples

THe braves had three #1s in the 90s Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux… They were all “true #1s” but since they were on the same team they were 1,2,3 in the rotation.

The Yanks have not had a true #1 for a while.. Wang is their #1, but hes not really a true no 1.

THe Dbacks had two #1s in Randy and Curt.

Peavy is a #1, Johan, etc.

Those pitchers who are among the top starters in the game, that you would want on the mound for you when everything is on the line.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 13, 2008 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions

SURE

We are on the same page here. A #1 upside is someone who is in the TOP HALF of #1’s like all the guys you mentioned. It isn’t referring in general to a guy like say, Joe Blanton last year. I love Joe Blanton but he was more like a top half #2 last year and a lower half #3 this year even tyhough he was the A’s ace.

Ace or #1 potential in a prospect means a TRUE ace not an ace by circumstance.

Btw, when healthy Wang is pretty close to a top half of the major leagues ace. Kind of a guy who is decent as your #1 and REAL GOOD if he’s your #2 pitcher. At least thats what I think.

by casejud on Oct 14, 2008 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions

You countered your own argument...

I think you and jblue are confusing “#1 Starter” and “Ace”. While I think all Aces are #1 starters, not all #1 starters are aces. I think Derek Lowe is a solid example of that. Same with Wang. Both are #1 starters (Wang when healthy) but not aces. They are not quite as dominating as a Johan or Halladay or Webb.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Oct 14, 2008 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm strictly talking language here

I see what you are saying though. If someone has ACE potential can we say that is to mean a starter in the TOP HALF of #1 starters? If someone says someone has #1/#2 potential we can take it to mean one of the top 15-45 starters in the game but not a top 15 guy. Just for language purposes we would know what someone means when they say these things. Know what I mean?

BTW, I think of Wang as a low=half of the league #1 when healthy and Darek Lowe as a pretty good #2 but these things are up to interpretation.

by casejud on Oct 14, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions

im not here to argue about the differnece between

Ace or True #1.. thats all symantics… there is a small subset of elite pitchers, pitchers who bring no hit stuff to the table every game, and have the work ethic and command to be consistently great. Those are the few pitchers which every team would love to have in the front of their rotation.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 15, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Meh

It was his debut, in the HWL. It doesn’t mean much, even if he had gotten bombed.

Wieters didn’t show much power there last year in a similar circumstance, but you can see how far extrapolating from that performance would have gotten you.

by aCone419 on Oct 13, 2008 11:51 AM EDT reply actions

AFL

Actually it was in the AFL. Don’t think it was to bad at all considering his long layoff.

by odogs101 on Oct 13, 2008 1:13 PM EDT reply actions

Oops

I thought the O’s were sending him in the footsteps of Wieters. The AFL is even worse for pitchers than the HWL, so there’s that.

by aCone419 on Oct 13, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions

How about Ted Lilly?

I don’t have the time to go back and look at and compare their stuff, but whenever I think of solid-mid rotation lefty, I think Ted Lilly. Is that accurate?

by David Tokarz on Oct 13, 2008 4:54 PM EDT reply actions

I can buy that

Sure … sounds possible.

by toonsterwu on Oct 13, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions

i've heard poor mans Cole Hamels

Which would obviously be very good still.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Oct 13, 2008 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Not really a fan of him

I can see him losing alot of luster in the next 5 years. Probably a 4-4.50 ERA lefty pitcher in the #3 spot in the lineup. I can see him putting up a Ted Lilly-like career.

by Take3 on Oct 13, 2008 8:24 PM EDT reply actions

I'm not sure

I see the Ted Lilly. Lilly’s biggest problem as a youngster was inconsistent command, while one of Matusz’s biggest strengths at the same stage is command.

by nms on Oct 13, 2008 9:34 PM EDT reply actions

Right

Also, it seems to me that Matusz has a tick more overall stuff (mostly fastball) that I remember Lilly having at a young age. I would say matusz is a better prospect at this point than Lilly was at the same but we all know that doesn’t mean a lot with pitchers always huh? I wonder how many guys were better prospects than Jamie Moyer at the same age and he’s outpitched most of them.

by casejud on Oct 14, 2008 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions

Jamie Moyer

Moyer has one of the strangest career tracks I’ve ever seen. He was below average through his “prime” years, but he’ll win 250+ games if he pitches next year with a huge chunk coming after his 35th birthday.

by BenB on Oct 14, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions