Bridwell vs Lackey rookie seasons

[Billy_Ball]

Rookie seasons

Lackey - Born Abilene, TX

18 starts

9-4

108 IP/113 H

33 BB

69 SO

3.66 ERA

 

Bridwell - Born Hereford, TX

20 starts

10-3

121 IP/115 H

30 BB

73 SO

3.64 ERA

I wonder how Bridwell would've done if we made the postseason.  Other than Lackey's better K rate, Didwell better otherwise.

 

[DMVol]

The knock on Bridwell is that he pitches to contact too much....but those #'s are eye opening....

[eligrba]

Bridwell did better. Period.

[totdprods]

Take away his two poor starts back to back against Oakland, and it's even better. 

10-1, 115 IP, 2.82 ERA, H9 of 8, BB9 of 2, HR9 of 1.3, K9 of 5.2, averaging an even 6 IP per start. 

I hadn't realized he managed to sneak in 20 GS and 120 IP this year. Considering that he really only had two bad starts, it's pretty hard to argue small sample-size. His other 18 GS were almost all carbon copies of themselves - 6 IP, 2 or 3 runs, usually late in the game or on solo home runs, couple walks, couple hits, couple strikeouts. 

 

[Troll Daddy]

Lackey game 7 ... enough said. This is no knock on Bridwell. I’m very excited about Richards and Bridwell pitching next season.

[ksangel]

Lackey was 23 and Bridwell 25...

Lackey had TOTR stuff...Bridwell doesn't - no knock to Bridwell - it's the difference between the two

[DMVol]

2 hours ago, totdprods said:

....His other 18 GS were almost all carbon copies of themselves - 6 IP, 2 or 3 runs, usually late in the game or on solo home runs, couple walks, couple hits, couple strikeouts. 

Can he maintain it?  Who knows.....but you certainly pencil him in for next year, he earned it....and, as strange as it may sound, even with the questions about him long term, none of the other guys, even Richards, are penciled in with the certainty that Bridwell is, at least in my book.... That's a reflection of lots of injury and production questions...Richards has to show can stay healthy for a full year, Skaggs and Heaney have to be healthy and more consistent, Ramirez and Tropeano have to show that they are healthy, etc., etc.....at least Bridwell was healthy and productive...

[totdprods]

10 minutes ago, DMVol said:

Can he maintain it?  Who knows.....but you certainly pencil him in for next year, he earned it....and, as strange as it may sound, even with the questions about him long term, none of the other guys, even Richards, are penciled in with the certainty that Bridwell is, at least in my book.... That's a reflection of lots of injury and production questions...Richards has to show he's healthy for a full year, Skaggs and Heaney have to be healthy and more consistent, Ramirez and Tropeano have to show that they are healthy, etc., etc.....at least Bridwell was healthy and productive...

If it was 5 or 10 starts I'd be more concerned, or if he varied wildly from great starts to poor starts and it just balanced out to his final line, I'd be more concerned. But every start (aside from Oakland) was so consistently good and similar I feel pretty optimistic. And he beat a lot of good teams too. Pretty impressive for a guy who was a reliever to jump straight into the rotation and give you 20 starts, and we got it twice this year with Ramirez as well. 

I think Bridwell's big plus is he's a true pitcher - he has a strategy and a gameplan, he knows how to execute it, he know's how to either adapt it or stay on it when things change, he's good at repeating his pitches, he's got enough command, and he has mental make-up in spades to keep from being thrown off. I don't think he's 2.80 ERA good, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as his peripherals suggest too. 

I agree that he should be penciled into the '18 starting rotation. If it was me, he's in there no doubt. However, with Heaney, Skaggs, and Ramirez out of options, and Shoemaker and Richards higher up the vet food chain, it'll be interesting to see who they view as the starting five. Ramirez's health is a huge question mark (as is everyone else) and is probably suited for the pen. Stashing Bridwell in the pen doesn't make much sense if they want to keep him stretched out, but I think he's pitched too good to start the year in SLC. Still, like with Alex Meyer last year, he may not be down there for long if that's where he starts. My guess is one of our SP's gets dealt at some point.

[GrittyVeterans]

Lackey threw harder and had a great curveball. 

Big Bridwell fan though

[happybat4]

You are also comparing different ERAs. 3 ERA was much better in 2002 than it is today.

[Adam]

Bridwell had better gate speed and handled the turns with more grace. 

[stormngt]

3 hours ago, totdprods said:

Take away his two poor starts back to back against Oakland, and it's even better. 

10-1, 115 IP, 2.82 ERA, H9 of 8, BB9 of 2, HR9 of 1.3, K9 of 5.2, averaging an even 6 IP per start. 

I hadn't realized he managed to sneak in 20 GS and 120 IP this year. Considering that he really only had two bad starts, it's pretty hard to argue small sample-size. His other 18 GS were almost all carbon copies of themselves - 6 IP, 2 or 3 runs, usually late in the game or on solo home runs, couple walks, couple hits, couple strikeouts. 

 

What would his stats be if you take out his best two starts as you did with his worse two?  That would be a better way to analyze if the poor stats were anomalies or not.  

[DMVol]

6 hours ago, totdprods said:

If it was 5 or 10 starts I'd be more concerned, or if he varied wildly from great starts to poor starts and it just balanced out to his final line, I'd be more concerned. But every start (aside from Oakland) was so consistently good and similar I feel pretty optimistic. And he beat a lot of good teams too. Pretty impressive for a guy who was a reliever to jump straight into the rotation and give you 20 starts, and we got it twice this year with Ramirez as well. 

I really thought Nolasco, who had 11 good starts for the Angels after the trade in 2016, would be at least decent, maybe a low 4.00 ERA, this year....Thought he was more comfortable pitching for a "home team" (he pitched well for the Dodgers too)....So, I don't know if 20 starts translates better than 11...we'll see....I sure hope so....

[totdprods]

3 minutes ago, stormngt said:

What would his stats be if you take out his best two starts as you did with his worse two?  That would be a better way to analyze if the poor stats were anomalies or not.  

Because I wasn't trying to find out if they were anomalies, was just pure curiosity. I just wanted to see what his stats looked like without the two Oakland starts, since that was the only team he really struggled against and those two starts were back to back.

[stormngt]

Just now, totdprods said:

Because I wasn't trying to find out if they were anomalies, was just pure curiosity. I just wanted to see what his stats looked like without the two Oakland starts, since that was the only team he really struggled against and the two starts were back to back.

I was just curious......

[Chuck]

Didwell should secure a spot in the rotation over Skaggs IMO going into 2018. 

[totdprods]

6 minutes ago, stormngt said:

I was just curious......

It wasn't too different - I based the two best off the 'Game Score', taking off his final start of the year (GSc of 73) and one of his two starts that generated a GSc of 71, and I took the worst, which were of course the Oak starts. 

102 IP
3.18 ERA
8.5 H9
2.0 BB9
4.9 K9
1.4 HR9

[stormngt]

1 minute ago, totdprods said:

It wasn't too different - I based the two best off the 'Game Score', taking off his final start of the year (GSc of 73) and one of his two starts that generated a GSc of 71, and I took the worst, which were of course the Oak starts. 

102 IP
3.18 ERA
8.5 H9
2.0 BB9
4.9 K9
1.4 HR9

that shows his consistency.  Very little drop when you take his two best games off.

[totdprods]

8 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

Didwell should secure a spot in the rotation over Skaggs IMO going into 2018. 

I'm not ready to give up on Skaggs yet, but his constant lingering injuries and issues are bugging the shit out of me. 

Skaggs age 22*-25:
44 GS, 4.36 ERA, 89 ERA+, 3.98 FIP, 1.33 WHIP
H9 of 9.0, HR9 of 1.0, BB9 of 2.9, K9 of 7.7
(*Skaggs made MLB debut before others)

Finley age 23-25:
34 G, 24 GS, 4.18 ERA, 96 ERA+, 3.90 FIP, 1.45 WHIP
H9 of 9.0, HR9 of 1.0, BB9 of 4.0,  K

Langston age 23-25:
96 G, 93 GS, 4.43 ERA, 93 ERA+, 4.24 FIP, 1.48 WHIP
H9 of 8.3, HR9 of 1.0, BB9 of 5.1, K9 of 7.9

Washburn age 23-25:
45 G, 35 GS, 4.46 ERA, 110 ERA+, 5.14 FIP, 1.30 WHIP
H9 of 8.0, HR9 of 1.4, BB9 of 3.7, K9 of 5.6

Some of Tyler's peripherals are actually a fair bit better than those of some of the Angels best lefties. 

[Pujols4MVP]

This.

4 hours ago, ksangel said:

Lackey was 23 and Bridwell 25...

Lackey had TOTR stuff...Bridwell doesn't - no knock to Bridwell - it's the difference between the two

This too.

3 hours ago, happybat4 said:

You are also comparing different ERAs. 3 ERA was much better in 2002 than it is today.

Yup, Lackey pitching in the steroid era, being younger & throwing harder & having a higher K rate.

Bridwell's K-rate is lower than what Joe Saunders did in 2007 at age 26. Just like Bridwell, in his best seasons he had a FIP much higher than his ERA.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/saundjo01.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bridwpa01.shtml

[Angel Oracle]

It's best to count on Bridwell as a #4/#5 starter, going forward.   Anything better is gravy.

The ultimate low K's guy who was a rock solid rookie had to be Paul Hartzell in 1976.

166 innings, 2.77 ERA but only 51 K's (less than 3 per 9 innings)

He was pretty much out of MLB by the early 1980s.

 

[DMVol]

1 hour ago, Angel Oracle said:

The ultimate low K's guy who was a rock solid rookie had to be Paul Hartzell in 1976

166 innings, 2.77 ERA but only 51 K's (less than 3 per 9 innings)

He was pretty much out of MLB by the early 1980s.

How about Kirk McCaskill, who had a little better career?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mccaski01.shtml

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

His record was 10-3, but the Angels were 17-3 in games he started, they won 1 more game in which he was a reliever for 3.2 innings. Although he pitched to contact they were weakly hit balls for the most part and kept his pitch count down.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

15 minutes ago, DMVol said:

How about Kirk McCaskill, who had a little better career?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/playermls/m/mccaski01.sht

link is bad, try this.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mccaski01.shtml

[Angel Oracle]

He was another one, although he had 202 K's in 1986.