Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

Chris Paddack 2021 Outlook


2ndCitySox
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, PhilaFanBoy said:

No. He's not.

Care to explain?

Remember: not everyone plays in a league where Martin Perez is your best option.

Edited by BMcP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BMcP said:

Care to explain?

if the Padres option him tomorrow so be it, but I'd rather have a pitcher that can right the ship on a playoff bound team than some random scrub in the free agent pool with no upside. Our league's best pitchers are Brad Keller, Michael Wacha, Jon Lester, Brett Anderson etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhilaFanBoy said:

if the Padres option him tomorrow so be it, but I'd rather have a pitcher that can right the ship on a playoff bound team than some random scrub in the free agent pool with no upside. Our league's best pitchers are Brad Keller, Michael Wacha, Jon Lester, Brett Anderson etc.

Ok but that isn’t a typical 12-team league, it seems.  I just don’t understand - based purely on stuff and results - how you could continue to champion Christopher Paddack as a must-own guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BMcP said:

Ok but that isn’t a typical 12-team league, it seems.  I just don’t understand - based purely on stuff and results - how you could continue to champion Christopher Paddack as a must-own guy.

Excuse me...'droppable'...fine, he can be dropped. I just wouldn't drop it like it's hot (garbage). It could still turn out to be someone else's dinner.

Lol whatever, you got me. It's been pretty bad. You can only shake your head.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my 14 teamer I just picked up Muller/Price, Jon Gray is recently available on Waivers. Makes holding Paddack harder when TBH the separation between him and those guys isn't much. Your league may vary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, BMcP said:

Ok but that isn’t a typical 12-team league, it seems.  I just don’t understand - based purely on stuff and results - how you could continue to champion Christopher Paddack as a must-own guy.

I still tend towards players on 'playoff bound' teams that could turn it around, because they have the reason and motivation to...rather than a guy who finds not only himself, but his team in a rut, and unlikely to compete in August/September. Anything can happen in the second half. I thought Paddack turned a corner but he has reverted back to his early struggles.

Edited by PhilaFanBoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhilaFanBoy said:

I still tend towards players on 'playoff bound' teams that could turn it around, because they have the reason and motivation to...rather than a guy who finds not only himself, but his team in a rut, and unlike to compete in August/September. Anything can happen in the second half. I thought Paddack turned a corner but he has reverted back to his early struggles.

Ok.  I respect your answers.  I agree with you, anything can happen ROS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PhilaFanBoy said:

I still tend towards players on 'playoff bound' teams that could turn it around, because they have the reason and motivation to...rather than a guy who finds not only himself, but his team in a rut, and unlikely to compete in August/September. Anything can happen in the second half. I thought Paddack turned a corner but he has reverted back to his early struggles.

I thought back in March that Paddack was not worth owning this year and nothing he's done this year has convinced me to feel any differently.  He had a 5.40 ERA last year (including playoffs) and after tonight his ERA is 5.40 this year too. 

He has some good starts sometimes, but it seems like one of every 3 starts he gets totally blown up.  And when he's bad, he's really bad and totally unable to limit the damage at all, regardless of who he is facing.  Unless he can learn to control the damage somewhat during his bad starts, Paddack is a big pass for me.  (He's sitting on my waiver wire in a deep 12 team league that has 30 roster spots each, so apparently some other owners agree.)

I just can't recall ever seeing a pitcher coming off a 5.40 ERA going inside the top 125 like Paddack did this year.  Has it ever happened before?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FootballFan101 said:

I just can't recall ever seeing a pitcher coming off a 5.40 ERA going inside the top 125 like Paddack did this year.  Has it ever happened before?  

People who struggled last year got a mulligan. There wasn’t a pandemic season in the past which might explain why you don’t recall a situation like this in the past. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

He is a human acid test for one's belief in xfip and advanced metrics---becasue the surface stats and just watching him provide absoultely no basis for optimism.

The most similar guy I can think of is Andrew Heaney, who seems to regularly unperferform advanced metrics -- 4 straight seasons with ERA well over xfip (at least .30 a year, and on average across the 4 seasons .75)

Maybe that is driven by persistent FB or HR rate which exceeds the assumption in xfip or SIERA?

Anyway, I'm fully out on Paddack at this point.  I am not sure the problem or the fix but am not willing to bet on him finding it/it stabilizing.  I'd rather go with a strong MR or day-trading.

Edited by Whizzinator
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, PhilaFanBoy said:

I still tend towards players on 'playoff bound' teams that could turn it around, because they have the reason and motivation to

This reasoning makes no sense. Professionals have plenty of financial motivation, regardless of the quality of team around them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, cs3 said:

This reasoning makes no sense. Professionals have plenty of financial motivation, regardless of the quality of team around them.

Money isn't everything. You'd bet on a pitcher turning it around just as easily on the Orioles or Pirates, as the Padres or Dodgers? If you're a one-man show on a bad rotation in a clubhouse satisfied with mediocrity, you're far less likely to bounce back than on a team with playoff aspirations and within a rotation where you can shoulder up with Yu Darvish, Joe Musgrove, etc. It's not true for every scenario but the case for it can certainly be argued and it's not non-sensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, PhilaFanBoy said:

If you're a one-man show on a bad rotation in a clubhouse satisfied with mediocrity, you're far less likely to bounce back than on a team with playoff aspirations

You're going to have to show some proof of this because I'm not buying it all. There are plenty of fantastic players on bad teams. I mean for the most obvious example look at Mike Trout's career in a pathetically inept Angels org. He's bounced back from literally every single slump he's ever been in. 

 

Im basing my decisions on data and expected results way way more than clubhouse culture or team chemistry

 

Edited by cs3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, cs3 said:

You're going to have to show some proof of this because I'm not buying it all. There are plenty of fantastic players on bad teams. I mean for the most obvious example look at Mike Trout's career in a pathetically inept Angels org. He's bounced back from literally every single slump he's ever been in. 

 

Im basing my decisions on data and expected results way way more than clubhouse culture or team chemistry

 

Agreed. There really isn’t any evidence I’ve ever seen to prove that “motivation” theory. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, PhilaFanBoy said:

I still tend towards players on 'playoff bound' teams that could turn it around, because they have the reason and motivation to...rather than a guy who finds not only himself, but his team in a rut, and unlikely to compete in August/September. Anything can happen in the second half. I thought Paddack turned a corner but he has reverted back to his early struggles.

I would be willing to bet there very little, to no, statistical support for guys on playoff bound teams being more likely to produce down the stretch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, PhilaFanBoy said:

Money isn't everything. You'd bet on a pitcher turning it around just as easily on the Orioles or Pirates, as the Padres or Dodgers? If you're a one-man show on a bad rotation in a clubhouse satisfied with mediocrity, you're far less likely to bounce back than on a team with playoff aspirations and within a rotation where you can shoulder up with Yu Darvish, Joe Musgrove, etc. It's not true for every scenario but the case for it can certainly be argued and it's not non-sensical.

Yes (outside of the fact the Dodgers and Padres are just better run orgs that tend to get better results out of their players anyway).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

I would be willing to bet there very little, to no, statistical support for guys on playoff bound teams being more likely to produce down the stretch.

Thanks for the pile on. All I meant is pitching development. I'd rather hope for some resurgence with a guy on the Padres, Dodgers, Giants, Rays, Astros, etc. than the Orioles, Pirates, Diamondbacks. Subtle changes/recognition of what's causing a player's struggles midseason would seem far more likely to occur on those ball clubs than struggling franchises. It's not the end all be all like I said.

3 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

Yes (outside of the fact the Dodgers and Padres are just better run orgs that tend to get better results out of their players anyway).

This is exactly all I mean.

Edited by PhilaFanBoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhilaFanBoy said:

Thanks for the pile on. All I meant is pitching development. I'd rather hope for some resurgence with a guy on the Padres, Dodgers, Giants, Rays, Astros, etc. than the Orioles, Pirates, Diamondbacks. Subtle changes midseason would seem far more likely to occur on those ball clubs than struggling franchises. It's not the end all be all like I said.

This is exactly all I mean.

That's not what you said though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 89Topps said:

That's not what you said though.

Playoff bound teams tend to have better pitching development and yes, players do feed off each other when they're winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhilaFanBoy said:

Playoff bound teams tend to have better pitching development and yes, players do feed off each other when they're winning.

Sure, some do.  Some don't.  There's no statistical evidence to support that.

And I would fee the same way about a Giants or Rays pitcher if they were where they are or if they were 10 games under .500.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...