General FA: Beinfest Says Rotation Set

[HUGG]

It all depends on Nolasco's consistency. He really only had a few terrible games, if that would've been erased his numbers would've been dramatically better.

You're now banned from making fun of Mibs about Volstad.
--------------------

A 3.88 ERA in ~205 innings if you take away his two really terrible starts last year.

You too.
--------------------

If you take out those two games where Nolasco was shellacked for 20 runs in 3 innings, he had like a 3.8 era / 1.30 whip year in the other 190 innings or whatever.

They should keep him and simply pull him when he is having "one of those games" the 4 times a year he clearly doesn't have it.

And you.

That one makes me sad.
--------------------
Nolasco is good.

Except for when he's not good.

[Erick]

You're now banned from making fun of Mibs about Volstad.
--------------------


You too.
--------------------


And you.

That one makes me sad.
--------------------
Nolasco is good.

Except for when he's not good.

Allowing 20 runs in 4.1 innings covers ~6% of his starts. He had a 3.88 ERA in the other 94% of his starts. It's possible that it was an aberration. It's also possible that maybe the manager should take out the starting pitcher on nights when he's clearly not on and allowing 10 runs in an inning.

That's different than saying "Volstad would be good if he didn't allow so many HR's" or whatever.

Volstad's more consistently mediocre.

Nolasco also had 40 more innings than Volstad for the year, which is obviously valuable.

[Mainge]

I think when Nolasco's getting knocked around, sometimes you just cut your losses and let him eat his innings and save the pen. There's a threshold in there somewhere, where the difference between 7 and 11 runs just doesn't matter.

Also, Hugg is saying that because Mibs said Volstads' ERA would be lower if you take out his Philly starts. Not homeruns, or whatever.

[Big Z]

I think when Nolasco's getting knocked around, sometimes you just cut your losses and let him eat his innings and save the pen. There's a threshold in there somewhere, where the difference between 7 and 11 runs just doesn't matter.

Also, Hugg is saying that because Mibs said Volstads' ERA would be lower if you take out his Philly starts. Not homeruns, or whatever.

Where is your avatar from? it's hilarious.

[Mainge]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glCRe7cSqhw[/ame]

[Big Z]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glCRe7cSqhw

LMAO! That is awesome.

[Erick]

I think when Nolasco's getting knocked around, sometimes you just cut your losses and let him eat his innings and save the pen. There's a threshold in there somewhere, where the difference between 7 and 11 runs just doesn't matter.

Also, Hugg is saying that because Mibs said Volstads' ERA would be lower if you take out his Philly starts. Not homeruns, or whatever.

Take away Volstad against the Phillies and he has a 4.33 ERA in 156 innings, which is not nearly as cool.

[Mainge]

I know. You're still can't make fun of Mibs though

[dim]

If you take away every run a Marlins pitcher allowed last season, then the Marlins were the only team in history to not allow any runs.

Thus, we should've kept the rotation exactly the same.

[Erick]

I think mibs just tries to make a point that Volstad still has upside, which I agree with; it's just a weird way of doing it.

Like, last year, I remember the "well, if you take away that inning, he had a good start" comments annoyed a lot of people.

[Beef]

dim and Erick were all over that ridiculous thread Festa posted

[Miamarlin21]

Did you just noticed Mainge's avatar?

[lou]

I think there is something to say when on July 20 (1.1 IP, 9 ER) and Aug 17 (3 IP, 11 ER) Nolasco gave up 18.5% of his runs on the year in 1.5% of his innings. That's an enormous ratio. It's kind of like a relief pitcher giving up two grand slams his first two appearances of the year, and then throwing 2.50 ball the rest. His end of the year numbers will be horribly inflated, even though he's not horrible.

I think if you want to eliminate all rain games, phillies games, etc, you're really stretching to make an argument and severely cherry picking splits, but it's hard to overlook two limited performances that skew a 200+ inning pitcher around .75 era points and .10 whip points, on the year. These are outlier performances, and it's not taking out his other bad starts, as on a quick glance I see at least another dozen 4+ ER starts (and another 8 ER gem in LAD, but that was over 5 innings so at least he ate some innings in that one like Mainge was saying).

Nolasco certainly struggled many other games in the year and I don't think anyone views him as what his FIP suggests because he's a proven underachiever at this point, but he's still a pretty solid guy and he will always have upside. He has control, unlike jackasses like Oliver Perez or Dan Cabrera who never figured it out. Yes, his K rate and hit rate from last year are scary as balls compared to years past, as well as his overall numbers including those 20 ER, but I don't think it is unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination to still look at a 202.2 inning sample size and realize Nolasco was a sub 4 era/1.30 whip guy despite those mass periphery statistical decreases. That's pretty good.

I'm not sure what this "argument" really is, but I really have no problem with Nolasco slotting in as a teams third starter, let alone 4th. I think he's a little better than most people give him credit for, as his end of the year numbers don't exactly show the full picture. He's really good, most of the time. His bad is just epic, worst in baseball bad. It's just who he is and gotta roll with the punches. I think the Marlins would have a real hard time finding someone better than him, and subsequently moving Nolasco for equal value based on those numbers. He's just more valuable to the franchise to keep.

[nny]

Yeah I normally jump on people for doing it, but Nolasco is a special case. That's not to say you can ignore it - saying he's a 3.88 ERA pitcher is wrong. But I think also calling him a 4.67 ERA pitcher is wrong. If he got pulled earlier in those starts like vast majority of pitchers do (11 runs was the most allowed last year and 9 runs with tied 10th. And out of the 10 he tied with, he was the only one to go sub-3 IP [Can't look at 1-10 since don't have a B-R subscription]), his final line looks a little prettier.

I also agree with Lou that I think he has more value than his perceived value based of final results, due to his normal solidness and then few implosions. I know people are fawning of Gio and what not but I severely doubt we get anyone of his caliber.

Well, the exception to that is if someone's perceived value is based off his peripherals - then we should cash in. But I severely doubt anyone would considering his last 3 years.

[lou]

Right, can't ignore it, but it's a real tough sell to view him as an upper 4s era pitcher. You dump and replace that guy, but he's to 'good' to do that to or just give away for salary relief.