GDT 4/17/18 vs Phiiiies

BeanieAntics said:
You talk about his bad control all the time, but the dude only has a career 3.1 BB/9. Why do you have more confidence in Newcomb who's BB/9 is way worse?
Click to expand...
thethe said:
Newcomb hits the glove or is near the glove much more consistently than folty. It's not even close.
Click to expand...

So your answer is: based on anecdotal non-data. Cool. I still have a lot more faith in Foltynewicz working out as a starter than Newcomb, fwiw.
 
Last edited:
GeorgiaGirl said:
The problem with Folty is very simple and it still has nothing to do with what any of the Atlanta media hammers on. His fastball isn't what it's cracked up to be, and all of his other pitches aren't good enough to be out pitches. He doesn't make good enough pitches with off speed for it to work for him.

He is what he is, and he's very unlikely to get better at this point. The Braves thought they could turn him into a late blooming Max Scherzer 2.0 and instead they have a less efficient Nathan Eovaldi.
Click to expand...
Meh. He’s obviously not going to be Scherzer, but this is a bit over the top for me. I think he has a shot at being better than Eovaldi.
 
thethe said:
Newcomb hits the glove or is near the glove much more consistently than folty. It's not even close.
Click to expand...

Unless Braves' catchers are purposely setting up outside of the strike zone for Newcomb, the stats just don't bear that out. It's not even close. 5.1 BB/9 vs. a 3.1 BB/9
 
jpx7 said:
So your answer is: based on anecdotal non-data. Cool. I still have a lot more faith in Foltynewicz working as our a starter than Newcomb, fwiw.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that after watching folly pitch you would characterize him as having average control? That's where the stats are misleading. Dude misses his spots more than any pitcher on the roster. Sometimes he misses over the middle.
 
Ozzie Swanson said:
I don't see it. He struggles to put hitters away and has spotty control. He'd be an incredibly frustrating closer.
Click to expand...

He throws too many pitches is his main problem. Pitching one inning would circumvent that. He’s usually decent from inning to inning. It seems many pitchers with lights out stuff have fared well in a relief role after not cutting it as a starter.

That said, I haven’t quite given up on him as a starter.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Unless Braves' catchers are purposely setting up outside of the strike zone for Newcomb, the stats just don't bear that out. It's not even close. 5.1 BB/9 vs. a 3.1 BB/9
Click to expand...

Yeah folty throws strikes over the middle of the plate often. Every time it doesn't result in a hit its lucky.

Stats are used to inform. They do not tell the whole story.
 
thethe said:
Are you telling me that after watching folly pitch you would characterize him as having average control? That's where the stats are misleading. Dude misses his spots more than any pitcher on the roster. Sometimes he misses over the middle.
Click to expand...

Who watches games?

But more seriously: of the small sample I've been able to watch of either Foltynewicz or Newcomb pitch, I've been much more "impressed" by the former's middling control + stuff than the latter's stuff + absence of control. The numbers (which is most of what I have to go by) bear that out.
 
CyYoung31 said:
He throws too many pitches is his main problem. Pitching one inning would circumvent that. He’s usually decent from inning to inning. It seems many pitchers with lights out stuff have fared well in a relief role after not cutting it as a starter.

That said, I haven’t quite given up on him as a starter.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I just think he adds more value as a stuff #4 starter than as an average closer.
 
jpx7 said:
Who watches games?

But more seriously: of the small sample I've been able to watch of either Foltynewicz or Newcomb pitch, I've been much more "impressed" by the former's middling control + stuff than the latter's stuff + absence of control. The numbers (which is most of what I have to go by) bear that out.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. Think Newk had a better idea of where the ball is going and his stuff is better than Foltys.
 
I know there’s nothing to show for it, but Dansby’s pitch recognition is light years better than last year
 
thethe said:
Agree to disagree. Think Newk had a better idea of where the ball is going and his stuff is better than Foltys.
Click to expand...

I think Newcomb's stuff is better, but his control is way worse. I can see why you'd pick that horse to ride; but, as previously confessed today, I'm a bet-hedger.

---

How is Swanson on second?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top