herschel

Brad Peacock 2017 Outlook

Recommended Posts

He has no command tonight. Balls going everywhere but in the zone. Third base ump did rob him of a check swing for a strike out though. But that was the only positive thus far.

 

My guess is we will see Devinski in an extended outing tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 BBs and 0 Ks after 2. This is extremely discouragaing, especially after his last start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean Brad Peacock is still Brad Peacock? who'd have thought?

Maybe there's actually a reason this is only his 4th start all season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

509 - just continuing to be his oracle self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

Peacock is 42% owned on ESPN. There must be a lot of prescient "oracles" out there...

Edited by Fiveohnine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow took a flier on him after his strong outing last time but he has been absolute trash tonight and it's not like the Angels are some potent lineup 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has zero strikeouts....Dude has a sick slider and throws it often, can only ponder if he's already hurt....I mean, that's how the season blows it seems this season.

Edited by Z06vette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Z06vette said:

He has zero strike outs....Dude has a sick slider and throws it often, can only ponder if he's already hurt....I mean, that's how the season blows it seems this season.

This is Peacock's 4th start all season. The other three weren't exactly Cy Young material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, he has no command. He's missing his target tonight, badly.

 

I will be giving him a mulligan for tonight's outing. While they are the Angels, they still are professional hitters that can take advantage of a pitcher's bad night. 

 

I still believe in the new slider and will be rostering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

This is Peacock's 4th start all season. The other three weren't exactly Cy Young material.

Go look at the log of those 4 starts....He has ZERO K's in this game. HIs K/9 is like13. My point, you go from striking out everyone and their mom to striking out nobody? No smoke-n-mirrors here either....Dude's metrics were very good going into this game...

Edited by Z06vette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabermetrics are very useful tools. But you don't need statistics to know that it's much easier to go out for 1 inning or less and throw your absolute best stuff than to start a game and get a QS for 6+ innings, which Peacock has done exactly once this entire year, although granted, he did at least put up some Ks in those few starts. So I can see being disappointed in that, if not in him sucking as a starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

Sabermetrics are very useful tools. But you don't need statistics to know that it's much easier to go out for 1 inning or less and throw your absolute best stuff than to start a game and get a QS for 6+ innings, which Peacock has done exactly once this entire year, although granted, he did at least put up some Ks in those few starts. So I can see being disappointed in that, if not in him sucking as a starter.

You also don't need statistics to understand context. He was getting stretched out over the past few starts and his K rate was translating. I'd venture that's why people are disappointed, because he looked like gold before this. 

 

'He stunk before so this is all a mirage' will cost you a ton of opportunities; it'll also save you nights like this from the Peacocks of the world, but the Quintanas and Porcellos with their track records aren't paying out any better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

?

Peacock is 42% owned on ESPN. There must be a lot of prescient "oracles" out there...

 

Dude...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rcarena said:

You also don't need statistics to understand context. He was getting stretched out over the past few starts and his K rate was translating. I'd venture that's why people are disappointed, because he looked like gold before this. 

 

'He stunk before so this is all a mirage' will cost you a ton of opportunities; it'll also save you nights like this from the Peacocks of the world, but the Quintanas and Porcellos with their track records aren't paying out any better. 

ok. That's a fair point.

I'm just saying, if you totally ignore his relief appearances, what exactly was "translating" aside from K:BB? That's all I'm saying.

I personally did have the luxury of having enough pitching in my leagues to not take a chance on him anywhere. But at the same time, it should definitely be called "taking a chance".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.  Ignoring K:BB seems a bit ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BMcP said:

Yeah.  Ignoring K:BB seems a bit ridiculous.

yeah. But not quite as ridiculous as "ignoring" the fact that almost none of it came as a starter.

Edited by Fiveohnine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

yeah. But not quite as ridiculous as "ignoring" the fact that almost none of it came as a starter.

 

Such a strange remark.  Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

ok. That's a fair point.

I'm just saying, if you totally ignore his relief appearances, what exactly was "translating" aside from K:BB? That's all I'm saying.

I personally did have the luxury of having enough pitching in my leagues to not take a chance on him anywhere. But at the same time, it should definitely be called "taking a chance".

It's absolutely taking a chance. 

 

But he struck out 25 batters in 15 innings as a starter. He also was limiting hits and walks. Is your criticism that he's not lasting long into games? Relievers get stretched into starters every year, and a few 3-5 inning starts early on is normal. 

 

Implosion is always a possibility with 'new money' starters, but for a guy to post the numbers he had - on the MLB leading Astros - people had plenty of reason to be excited. If you have pitching already and have no need to take shots on the position, then you've been among the luckier players this season, given all the injuries. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Windgara said:

drop

 

I remember my first fantasy baseball league. 

 

In all seriousness I wouldn't be dropping him in competitive leagues. He still has great stuff and I believe he could be a nice SP4 for many teams in a year where pitching has been awful. His K rates (not only as a relief pitcher) have been really good and I feel like tonight was a night where he was just off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, rcarena said:

...Implosion is always a possibility with 'new money' starters, but for a guy to post the numbers he had - on the MLB leading Astros - people had plenty of reason to be excited...

Like I said, I'm not totally disagreeing with you. But "excited" is where you lose me. "Very slightly optimistic"? maybe.

And I'm not saying it was a no-brainer to leave him on waivers the way most people on ESPN have. (I DO think Shoemaker +170 was very close to one, but that's a totally different discussion).

But I am saying I think a lot of sabermatricians fail to consider/realize that it's much easier to pitch an inning or less in relief than it is to start a major league baseball game.

I mean sure, there was a small chance that Brad Peacock suddenly figured something out as a starter at 29 years old. There's a chance he still will. But it seems clear to me that being "excited" about that chance is/was a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all this talk about starting vs relieving.. as a starter in 2017 he had a line of 3.6/1.61/1.67. he actually had worse numbers when he was relieving this year.

i'm don't think we should have expected kershaw for the remainder of the season, but to take the chance and think he might be average or better was not ridiculous. if anyone was predicting a failure, it wasn't because of his numbers this season as a starter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fiveohnine said:

Like I said, I'm not totally disagreeing with you. But "excited" is where you lose me. "Very slightly optimistic"? maybe.

And I'm not saying it was a no-brainer to leave him on waivers the way most people on ESPN have. (I DO think Shoemaker +170 was very close to one, but that's a totally different discussion).

But I am saying I think a lot of sabermatricians fail to consider/realize that it's much easier to pitch an inning or less in relief than it is to start a major league baseball game.

I mean sure, there was a small chance that Brad Peacock suddenly figured something out as a starter at 29 years old. There's a chance he still will. But it seems clear to me that being "excited" about that chance is/was a bit much.

Well, I'm not sure I follow your point. He posted 25K's in 15 innings as a starter and pitches for the league's best team. If you think 'excitement' over that is hard to grasp then our philosophies are very different, I suppose. Nobody said 'dude's a lock.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.