• Dellin Betances Vs. Stephen Pryor

    Posted by on May 23rd, 2014 · Comments (10)

    The start of their careers:

    Player SO9 G ERA+ From To Age W L IP H R ER BB SO BF
    Dellin Betances 15.24 26 121 2011 2014 23-26 2 0 33.2 24 13 13 17 57 141
    Stephen Pryor 10.09 33 131 2012 2013 22-23 3 1 30.1 25 13 10 14 34 130
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 5/23/2014.

    .
    Just saying.

    Comments on Dellin Betances Vs. Stephen Pryor

    1. kenclay
      May 23rd, 2014 | 2:58 pm

      I’ll take the bait. What are you “just saying” this time?

    2. May 23rd, 2014 | 3:30 pm

      @ kenclay:
      Looks outstanding, but, we gotta give it some more time.

    3. Evan3457
      May 25th, 2014 | 12:32 pm

      Pryor missed last year, and this year so far, because of surgery on his shoulder. 10.6 K/9 is impressive, but 2.0 HR/9 isn’t.

      Betances could get hurt again, too, but what he’s doing…Pryor’s short stint is not truly comparable.

    4. Mr. October
      May 25th, 2014 | 1:10 pm

      I haven’t seen Betances pitch since Spring training, but I think he’s for real to the extent that he’s capable of having a tremendous amount of success in a set-up or short relief role throughout the course of this season and in the future…

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Betances could get hurt again, too, but what he’s doing…Pryor’s short stint is not truly comparable.

      @ Evan3457:
      The way Betances is dealing, one could almost get the impression that pitching is a more significant factor to winning in baseball than hitting by even more than “only one ordinal!”

    5. Evan3457
      May 25th, 2014 | 1:28 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      I haven’t seen Betances pitch since Spring training, but I think he’s for real to the extent that he’s capable of having a tremendous amount of success in a set-up or short relief role throughout the course of this season and in the future…
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Betances could get hurt again, too, but what he’s doing…Pryor’s short stint is not truly comparable.
      @ Evan3457:
      The way Betances is dealing, one could almost get the impression that pitching is a more significant factor to winning in baseball than hitting by even more than “only one ordinal!”

      And then again, teams, and hitters, haven’t started adjusting to him yet. He still has to pass the longevity test. I think Betances has been great, clearly much better than Pryor. As long as he keeps his mechanics in line, and doesn’t get hurt, he should be fine.

      A number of relievers have looked this dominant in the regular season, only to get burned in the post-season. One could almost get the impression that better hitting teams have more success against dominant closers. Joe Nathan is one of them.

    6. Mr. October
      May 25th, 2014 | 4:11 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Pitching is only slightly [more significant as a factor in winning in baseball] than hitting, [or more significant] by only one ordinal.

      Three N.Y.Y. games in the third week of May, 2014:

      On May 21, Chicago Cubs starter Samardzija yielded 0 ER on 4 H in 7.00 IP, for an ERA of 0.00, in the first seven(7) innings of the game; in the next two (2) innings, relief pitchers replacing Samardzija yielded 2 ER on 2 H in 2 IP (9.00 ERA) against the same lineup of hitters…

      On May 22, Chicago White Sox starter Sale yielded 0 ER on 1 H in 6.00 IP, for an ERA of 0.00, in the first six (6) innings of the game; in the next three (3) innings, relief pitchers replacing Sale yielded 1 ER on 2 H (3.00 ERA) against the same lineup of hitters…

      On May 24, Chicago White Sox starter Danks yielded 0 ER on 3 H in 8.00 IP, for an ERA of 0.00, in the first eight (8) innings of the game; in the next inning, the relief pitcher replacing Danks, yielded 3 ER on 4 H in 1 IP (27.00 ERA) against the same lineup of hitters…

      Three-game Totals:

      Starting pitching:
      0.00 ERA (0 ER on 8 H in 21.00 IP).

      Relief pitching:
      9.00 ERA (6 ER on 8 H in 6.00 IP).

      @ Evan3457:
      A cumulative 0.00 ERA (21.00 IP) for three starters compared to a cumulative 9.00 ERA (6.00 IP) for opposing relievers against the same lineups in three games against two different teams in the same week – How is pitching “only slightly” more significant as a factor in winning in baseball than hitting, or more significant “by only one ordinal,” again?

    7. Raf
      May 25th, 2014 | 9:01 pm
    8. Evan3457
      May 26th, 2014 | 10:48 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Pitching is only slightly [more significant as a factor in winning in baseball] than hitting, [or more significant] by only one ordinal.
      Three N.Y.Y. games in the third week of May, 2014:
      On May 21, Chicago Cubs starter Samardzija yielded 0 ER on 4 H in 7.00 IP, for an ERA of 0.00, in the first seven(7) innings of the game; in the next two (2) innings, relief pitchers replacing Samardzija yielded 2 ER on 2 H in 2 IP (9.00 ERA) against the same lineup of hitters…
      On May 22, Chicago White Sox starter Sale yielded 0 ER on 1 H in 6.00 IP, for an ERA of 0.00, in the first six (6) innings of the game; in the next three (3) innings, relief pitchers replacing Sale yielded 1 ER on 2 H (3.00 ERA) against the same lineup of hitters…
      On May 24, Chicago White Sox starter Danks yielded 0 ER on 3 H in 8.00 IP, for an ERA of 0.00, in the first eight (8) innings of the game; in the next inning, the relief pitcher replacing Danks, yielded 3 ER on 4 H in 1 IP (27.00 ERA) against the same lineup of hitters…
      Three-game Totals:
      Starting pitching:
      0.00 ERA (0 ER on 8 H in 21.00 IP).
      Relief pitching:
      9.00 ERA (6 ER on 8 H in 6.00 IP).
      @ Evan3457:
      A cumulative 0.00 ERA (21.00 IP) for three starters compared to a cumulative 9.00 ERA (6.00 IP) for opposing relievers against the same lineups in three games against two different teams in the same week – How is pitching “only slightly” more significant as a factor in winning in baseball than hitting, or more significant “by only one ordinal,” again?

      A small sample size of three pitchers, two of them pitching brilliantly all season, against a team in a hitting slump, disproves cumulative records gathered from a 19 complete seasons.

      Oooh, can everyone play this game? OK, then I pick Game 6 of the NLCS, Game 1 of the World Series, and Game 6 of the World Series, where a trio of starters named Kershaw (Cy Young winner), Wainwright (Cy Young runner-up), and Wacha (brilliant rookie with a post-season ERA of 1.01 coming into that game) combine to post a collective ERA of 10.29, while the relievers in those games post an ERA of 2.70

    9. Mr. October
      May 27th, 2014 | 1:00 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      A small sample size of three pitchers, two of them pitching brilliantly all season, against a team in a hitting slump, disproves cumulative records gathered from a 19 complete seasons.

      @ Evan3457:
      There are “cumulative records from 19 complete seasons” of a professional league for a sport that has been played in this country and around the world since the 1870s that “pitching is only slightly more significant as a factor in winning in baseball than hitting, or more significant by ‘only one ordinal?’” That’s interesting, because I’ve never read something like that anywhere but here…

      What happened on May 21, May 22, and May 24 of this past week? The same New York Yankees lineup suddenly “got hot” or “lucky” and came out of a collective slump for a few innings at the moment in each of those three games when the starting pitchers, or two of the best starters in baseball, were removed by coincidence?

      I’ve never heard of a team going into a slump against starting pitchers only…

      Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher in baseball. He is always pitching when the other team doesn’t score any runs.” – Tim McCarver…

      And from 2004-07, Jaret Wright, Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, and Roger Clemens, all in the final years of their careers, were the unluckiest postseason pitchers in baseball. They were always pitching when other playoff teams were scoring runs.

    10. Mr. October
      May 27th, 2014 | 8:30 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      A small sample size of three pitchers, two of them pitching brilliantly all season, against a team in a hitting slump, disproves cumulative records gathered from a 19 complete seasons…

      @ Evan3457:
      We can include the May 20, 2014 game against the Chicago Cubs for last week, too:

      Four-game Totals:

      Starting pitching:
      0.34 ERA (1 ER on 12 H in 26.67 IP).

      Relief pitching:
      5.79 ERA (6 ER on 10 H in 9.33 IP).

      Four different starting pitchers pitching for two different teams in two different leagues to a 0.34 ERA against the same lineup relief pitchers pitched to a 5.79 ERA against in the same week.

      @ Evan3457:
      How is pitching ‘only slightly’ more significant as a factor in winning in baseball than hitting, or more
      significant ‘by only one ordinal,’ again?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      OK, then I pick Game 6 of the NLCS, Game 1 of the World Series, and Game 6 of the World Series, where a trio of starters named Kershaw (Cy Young winner), Wainwright (Cy Young runner-up), and Wacha (brilliant rookie with a post-season ERA of 1.01 coming into that game) combine to post a collective ERA of 10.29, while the relievers in those games post an ERA of 2.70…

      OK, then I’ll ask the same question: “What happened in Game 6 of the [2014 N.L.C.S. and Games 1 and 2 of the 2014 World Series]?” The St. Louis and Boston lineups both suddenly “got cold” and/or “unlucky” at the moment in each of those three games when the starting pitchers were removed, by some coincidence?

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.