Analyzing Fried's stuff

[smootness]

Which isn't all that new. It happened with relative frequency pre-1980s when the closer role and more defined bullpen roles became the norm.

Right. Like I said, the rule that RPs go no more than an inning is a modern creation. Now, there are some good reasons for it, which is why it became a rule in the first place, but like most things, over time you find a better balance in the middle. You can get greater effectiveness out of a lot of pitchers in just an inning where they can let it rip. But you can also get better effectiveness out of others by letting them pitch a bit more.

There's always a trade off, though. By throwing more in any one game, you won't be able to use those guys as often. So it's probably something that would have to be better planned ahead of time. Instead of just going into a game with everyone available and just taking guys off the list if they've pitched too much recently, it would have to be something where you pinpoint games for certain guys based on the starting pitcher, opponent, etc. And then you just don't use them if the SP is killing it or if the game is not competitive.

 

[clvclv]

Right. Like I said, the rule that RPs go no more than an inning is a modern creation. Now, there are some good reasons for it, which is why it became a rule in the first place, but like most things, over time you find a better balance in the middle. You can get greater effectiveness out of a lot of pitchers in just an inning where they can let it rip. But you can also get better effectiveness out of others by letting them pitch a bit more.

There's always a trade off, though. By throwing more in any one game, you won't be able to use those guys as often. So it's probably something that would have to be better planned ahead of time. Instead of just going into a game with everyone available and just taking guys off the list if they've pitched too much recently, it would have to be something where you pinpoint games for certain guys based on the starting pitcher, opponent, etc. And then you just don't use them if the SP is killing it or if the game is not competitive.

As mentioned earlier though - if anyone's ever been built for this, you'd think this collection of arms would be the perfect test-case. A 13-man staff with 4 one-inning guys - Vizcaino, Minter, Ramirez, and Freeman to cover the 8th and 9th innings on any given night with 2 guys allowed to go deep when they can (Julio and Dickey), and a mixture of Folty, Newcomb, Sims, Gohara, Allard, Soroka, and Wright used in 3 inning stints would be really interesting to see - if for nothing else than to see how it'd work out.

Maybe sign another innings-eater like Cobb to replace Dickey and you still wouldn't get into expensive-arm territory for a good while.

Some of you guys may have a breakdown of how Tampa's stretch of only allowing one or two starters to go through a lineup more than twice handy for comparison (what parts could be, that is).

 

[smootness]

You certainly hope guys like Gohara, Allard, Soroka, and Wright can become more useful SPs than that.

It won't ever be ideal to have all your SPs move to smaller, more frequent roles. There will always be guys who are most effective when used for 6+ innings every 5th day.

 

[clvclv]

You certainly hope guys like Gohara, Allard, Soroka, and Wright can become more useful SPs than that.

It won't ever be ideal to have all your SPs move to smaller, more frequent roles. There will always be guys who are most effective when used for 6+ innings every 5th day.

Kinda the point though. I'd actually be pretty interested to see us move towards the Tampa model - no matter how well these guys are going (in most cases, of course), limit them to two passes through the opposing lineup every time out. No need for any of them to "throttle it back" much at all if you did that. If Folty can be effective sitting it 98 two times through, let him cut it loose. Same for Newcomb or any of the others with bigger fastballs.

I think most would agree that it's more-or-less that "five and fly" is rapidly becoming the model, and there's little doubt that we've got a collection of arms that honestly could be dominant in that role. If we could develop two or three of them into Andrew Miller/Chris Devenski types that could be used two or even three times a week in some cases you actually could develop multiple "Aces" from within by (in essence) piggybacking guys.

I really think Folty and Newcomb in particular would benefit from that model - it's the two of them that would seem to continue to be the teases moving forward. Solid control where thay can be unhittable every third or fourth start, struggling when they get to the 4th in the others.

 

[Enscheff]

During his start last night, Fried's FA topped out at 96.8, and averaged 92.1. It sat around 90 early, but he was able to ramp it up 2-3 ticks later in the start. This is good news.

He also threw enough changes that we could get an idea of how good it is. 7.5 horizontal and 4.4 vertical are both below average for a change.

The command is currently poor at the MLB level, but everything else he has done suggests he could have fringe average command with more reps.

I'll pretty much stick with my first impressions...

FF: 45

CU: 65

CH: 40

Command: 45

That looks like a long man out of the BP, or a very good LOOGY.

Longenhagen heard about the same:

NYTT

12:53 Thoughts on Max Fried's first start for the Braves?

Eric A Longenhagen

12:53 Didn't see it but heard he was okay. low-90s, curveball was great, strike throwing and changeup were not.

 

[chop2chip]

Longenhagen heard about the same:

NYTT

12:53 Thoughts on Max Fried's first start for the Braves?

Eric A Longenhagen

12:53 Didn't see it but heard he was okay. low-90s, curveball was great, strike throwing and changeup were not.

This was my impression as well. I think the total package can play up if he throws strikes at a plus rate. Otherwise, I'm not sure he has the arsenal of pitches to be anything more than a backend starter.

 

[Southcack77]

This was my impression as well. I think the total package can play up if he throws strikes at a plus rate. Otherwise, I'm not sure he has the arsenal of pitches to be anything more than a backend starter.

Be nice to get someone up that threw strikes and had stuff.

 

[Tapate50]

This was my impression as well. I think the total package can play up if he throws strikes at a plus rate. Otherwise, I'm not sure he has the arsenal of pitches to be anything more than a backend starter.

That's my take. I saw him and looked like a few of those fastballs has some sink. He had some guys on their heels waiting on that hammer it seemed.

 

[Enscheff]

Fried's xwOBA is the 2nd highest of any Braves pitcher this year at .370, behind only Aaron Blair.

He has given up a .414 mark vs RHers, and a .278 mark vs LHers. He showed similar splits in AAA this year.

A straight fastball with average velocity, a wipe out curve and a below average change that results in massive platoon splits...that's a LOOGY.

 

[msstate7]

Fried's xwOBA is the 2nd highest of any Braves pitcher this year at .370, behind only Aaron Blair.

He has given up a .414 mark vs RHers, and a .278 mark vs LHers. He showed similar splits in AAA this year.

A straight fastball with average velocity, a wipe out curve and a below average change that results in massive platoon splits...that's a LOOGY.

I have no opinion on fried, but seems pretty small sample size...

AAA = 6.0 ip

MLB = 11.2 ip

 

[Enscheff]

I have no opinion on fried, but seems pretty small sample size...

AAA = 6.0 ip

MLB = 11.2 ip

You're right, sample sizes are small. It's probably pretty dumb to even include those stats in my post.

I don't need much of a sample to tell his stuff isn't going to work long term in a MLB rotation...just like I knew Sims wasn't going to work.

 

[Enscheff]

Rich Hill is an interesting comp for Fried. Both are primarily FF/CU guys, both are LHed, and I think a lot of folks have Hill's 2016 season in mind when they dream about Fried's potential. So let's look at how they stack up...

2017 Fried FF: 92.8 MPH, 4.7x, 7.3z
2016 Hill FF: 91.0 MPH, 8.8x, 9.7z

Fried obviously throws harder, but look at the difference in movement. Hill got 4" more fade and over 2" more rise on his FF in 2016. That movement pushes Hill's FF up to a 50, while the straightness of Fried's FF pushes it below average to 45.

2017 Fried CU: 75.1 MPH, -4.0x, -7.0z
2016 Hill CU: 75.1 MPH, -8.5x, -7.9z

Fried has a 65 CU. Hill has a 75 CU (Zito had an 80+). Hill has over twice the horizontal movement of Fried, and almost an inch more drop.

2017 Fried BB/9: 6+
2016 Hill BB/9: 2.69

Right now, Fried's control is obviously poor, and we all know he is better than this. Hill had above average control in 2016.

Hill combined a 50 FF, a 75 CU, and 55 command to post a 2.12/2.39/3.36 ERA/FIP/xFIP in 2016. This year, his fastball has lost a couple ticks, his control worsened to 45 grade, and his ERA/FIP/xFIP rose to 3.67/3.89/3.89 as a direct result.

Hill's FF has more movement than Fried's, his CU is a full grade better, and he has fringe average control. Even if Fried improves his command to 50 grade, he will still be a poor man's Rich Hill.

Maximum upside for Fried is likely Hill's career ERA/FIP/xFIP right around 4. That's a #4 who can produce ~2 wins per year.

Fried's most likely role is out of the BP, either as a multi inning guy, or a LOOGY.