Instant replay made it's long awaited major league debut last night and, wouldn't you know it, Alex Rodriguez was the beneficiary.
Everything came off according to plan. The review took two minutes and fifteen seconds and all parties involved seemed to feel justice was served.
Here's the funny thing: I'm not sure that the call was right or that instant replay was capable of providing the proper evidence. The ball ARod hit was so far above the foul pole (ok, FAIR pole...) that the TV cameras I saw couldn't conclusively tell where it crossed into foul territory. The ball clearly landed to the left of the yellow line which means the only way it could be fair was to have hooked around the pole.
I didn't see any evidence that said it did since the main camera was so tight and the ball so high that there was no point of reference. Just as important I guess, is that there was no evidence that the call was wrong and if the on-field decision can not be conclusively overruled, then the ruling stands.
I believe that's what happened last night. One wonders how long it will be until cameras are placed or instructed by the big office to get different angles on home run balls. It isn't the worst thing in the world if TV coverage helps the game.
I'll just be interested to see the ripple effect.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Regression Part Two - It's Happening Already
So this post was essentially going to discuss which over-performing or under-performing teams I thought would regress or improve, and then the Yankees go ahead and make one of my points for me. I was marveling on Monday at how the Twins had managed to outscore the Yankees by 27 runs despite having an vastly inferior offense on paper. Three games later, and now they've only outscored them by 17 after a brutal 3 game sweep by scores of 12-4, 8-2, and 5-1. That's a run differential of +18 for the Yankees over just 3 days. I was discussing how surprisingly effective the Twins young starters had been; well, 3 games have passed and the ERAs of Nick Blackburn (3.65 to 3.83), Kevin Slowey (4.26 to 4.41), and Glen Perkins (3.84 to 4.08) have elevated. Slowey, in particular, has hit upon some hard times - in his last 3 outings he's given up 15 ER in 15 IP.
The Yankees, meanwhile, were under-performing their preseason expectations. On July 21st when I last wrote in this space, their run differential was +32. Today, it's +50. The Twinkies were at +33 - and after today's game, they're at +15. So it's evident just how dramatically three games can change the way the world looks. Suddenly the Yankees are surging and the Twins appear headed to the black hole of negative run differential. Suddenly the Yankees have roughly the same expected win-loss record (based on run differential) as the first place Rays - for the Yankees, 56-45, for the Rays, 55-45. A half-game difference. Meanwhile the left-for-dead Detroit Tigers now have a better expected win-loss record than the Twins. Why? Because of the drastic shift in run differential: the Tigers, in 3 days, went from a +6 to a +33. Yes, that is what playing the Royals will do to you. But the point remains valid - if the world seems upside down in July, sometimes you shouldn't buy the hype. Nobody picked the Twins over the Tigers in March, but on July 20th the Twins seemed obviously better. Three days later? Not so much.
Over in the AL East, the story is clearly the Rays, and they're far more than just lucky. They're actually very good. Their run differential suggests a team with a record of 55-45, while their actual record is 59-41. Four wins above your expected win-loss record isn't absurd. The 2007 Arizona Diamondbacks were famously outscored by their opponents last year. Their run differential was -20 and they won 90 games. A team that finished the season with that differential would normally be expected to win 79 games. The Rays this year are at +42, which is very good. But the two teams behind them have better marks. And if things continue to right themselves in the world of baseball, the Rays will finish the season behind both the Yankees and the Red Sox, unless they actually improve - which will be difficult because they're already playing a bit above their heads. The Rays are going to win the AL East sometime within the next 3 years. I'm just not convinced it will happen in this year.
I briefly touched upon the weirdness in the NL West last time, but it's worth exploring further. As I mentioned earlier, the D-Backs were outscored last year and won 90 games. That's not common. And as retribution, the D-Backs have outscored their oppponents by 12 runs this year and are sitting pretty at .500, 50 wins and 50 losses. After 100 games last year, Arizona had been outscored by 36 runs and were 52-48. Baseball is weird. Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs one year. Bill Veeck sent a midget up to draw a walk in 1951. Wille Hernandez won an MVP award. The 45-58 Colorado Rockies played in the World Freaking Series last year. You never know. The Diamondbacks are in many, if not all respects, a better team this year than they were last year...except that they're not. The Dodgers are 4 games under .500 but just 1.5 games out of first place. The Padres, who were a few good changeups away from a postseason berth last year, have been outscored by 106 runs this year. Four of the 5 teams in the NL West have run into poor luck this year based on their expected win-loss record, the sole exception being the Rockies, who are performing exactly the way the math says they should be.
Which teams are most likely to run wild in the second half? The Braves and the Athletics are both underperforming by 6 wins. If their luck improves, their records should too, which would make the A's dangerous wild card contenders and the Braves...well, probably still a third place team. The Marlins are overperforming by 6 wins, so expect them to slip some. But the Mets and Phillies are both performing close to their expected records and figure to end up 1-2. I think it's reasonable to expect the Tigers to make a strong run as well; I was pessimistic on their chances at a playoff berth before the season, more so than most, but I never thought they'd be this bad. Verlander seems to be coming on strong, and if Miguel Cabrera has a second half close to his career averages (.310/.386/.524) they'll start playing more like the team that Steve Phillips anointed "the best offense of all time". Before the season.
The Yankees, meanwhile, were under-performing their preseason expectations. On July 21st when I last wrote in this space, their run differential was +32. Today, it's +50. The Twinkies were at +33 - and after today's game, they're at +15. So it's evident just how dramatically three games can change the way the world looks. Suddenly the Yankees are surging and the Twins appear headed to the black hole of negative run differential. Suddenly the Yankees have roughly the same expected win-loss record (based on run differential) as the first place Rays - for the Yankees, 56-45, for the Rays, 55-45. A half-game difference. Meanwhile the left-for-dead Detroit Tigers now have a better expected win-loss record than the Twins. Why? Because of the drastic shift in run differential: the Tigers, in 3 days, went from a +6 to a +33. Yes, that is what playing the Royals will do to you. But the point remains valid - if the world seems upside down in July, sometimes you shouldn't buy the hype. Nobody picked the Twins over the Tigers in March, but on July 20th the Twins seemed obviously better. Three days later? Not so much.
Over in the AL East, the story is clearly the Rays, and they're far more than just lucky. They're actually very good. Their run differential suggests a team with a record of 55-45, while their actual record is 59-41. Four wins above your expected win-loss record isn't absurd. The 2007 Arizona Diamondbacks were famously outscored by their opponents last year. Their run differential was -20 and they won 90 games. A team that finished the season with that differential would normally be expected to win 79 games. The Rays this year are at +42, which is very good. But the two teams behind them have better marks. And if things continue to right themselves in the world of baseball, the Rays will finish the season behind both the Yankees and the Red Sox, unless they actually improve - which will be difficult because they're already playing a bit above their heads. The Rays are going to win the AL East sometime within the next 3 years. I'm just not convinced it will happen in this year.
I briefly touched upon the weirdness in the NL West last time, but it's worth exploring further. As I mentioned earlier, the D-Backs were outscored last year and won 90 games. That's not common. And as retribution, the D-Backs have outscored their oppponents by 12 runs this year and are sitting pretty at .500, 50 wins and 50 losses. After 100 games last year, Arizona had been outscored by 36 runs and were 52-48. Baseball is weird. Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs one year. Bill Veeck sent a midget up to draw a walk in 1951. Wille Hernandez won an MVP award. The 45-58 Colorado Rockies played in the World Freaking Series last year. You never know. The Diamondbacks are in many, if not all respects, a better team this year than they were last year...except that they're not. The Dodgers are 4 games under .500 but just 1.5 games out of first place. The Padres, who were a few good changeups away from a postseason berth last year, have been outscored by 106 runs this year. Four of the 5 teams in the NL West have run into poor luck this year based on their expected win-loss record, the sole exception being the Rockies, who are performing exactly the way the math says they should be.
Which teams are most likely to run wild in the second half? The Braves and the Athletics are both underperforming by 6 wins. If their luck improves, their records should too, which would make the A's dangerous wild card contenders and the Braves...well, probably still a third place team. The Marlins are overperforming by 6 wins, so expect them to slip some. But the Mets and Phillies are both performing close to their expected records and figure to end up 1-2. I think it's reasonable to expect the Tigers to make a strong run as well; I was pessimistic on their chances at a playoff berth before the season, more so than most, but I never thought they'd be this bad. Verlander seems to be coming on strong, and if Miguel Cabrera has a second half close to his career averages (.310/.386/.524) they'll start playing more like the team that Steve Phillips anointed "the best offense of all time". Before the season.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Regression to the mean and whatnot
I took a look at the standings yesterday. I devote several hours of each day thinking about, reading about, or occasionally writing about baseball, but for some reason the standings are generally the last thing I look at. But yesterday, on the heels of a Yankee victory, I felt bold enough to look at the standings. And it freaked me out. Did you guys know that the Minnesota Twins are really good? Or that everyone in the National League West is sub-atrocious? Or just how bad the Indians are? I had vague ideas that these things were happening in the world of baseball, but a simple look at the standings really hammered one thing home - baseball's weird. It's really, really weird.
The Twins traded one of the best pitchers of the decade this offseason, presumably entered "rebuilding" mode, and yet as of tonight they are 1/2 game back in the Central. I should know better by now, but I don't. Every year I look at the Twins roster with a mix of bemusement and disgust. Livan Hernandez is your ace? Mike Lamb is your starting 3rd baseman? You gave Nick Punto 472 at-bats last year? You traded Matt Garza? The Twins never look good to me on paper. They haven't for years. This year they looked particularly wretched, bad enough to keep the Royals some company near the cellar. And in a division with 2 powerhouses in Detroit and Cleveland (it's funny now, but it wasn't in April), they appeared to stand no chance whatsoever. Beyond Livan Hernandez, they were throwing out Kevin Slowey, Nick Blackburn, Scott Baker, and Glen Perkins, guys who all had pretty similar profiles - good minor league track records, but all command pitchers without much stuff who figured to get lit up if they were in the strike zone too much in the majors. Blackburn, in particular, figured to get pounded. He gave up nearly a hit per inning in the minors while striking out just 5.5 per 9. Here he is with 7 wins and a 3.65 ERA. How is that possible? The only weak link in what has turned out to be a very strong rotation has been Hernandez. As good and surprising as the Twins have been this year, can you imagine how much better they'd be if they decided to call up Francisco Liriano and DFA Livan Hernandez? Is it crazy to say he's worth at least 2 wins over the second half? As for the offense...would you believe they've outscored the Yankees by 27 runs? Neither would I.
So there they are. One-half of a game back. Behind which team, though? Behind the Indians, reigning Central champs and dudes who were one freaking game from the World Series last year? No sir. Behind the Tigers, you ask? Afraid not (and yeah, it feels awesome to have called that). They are 1/2 a game behind the...Chicago White Sox. Really? The White Sox? The PECOTA-hating weirdos who threw a ton of money at past-their-prime middle relievers this offseason? The team that refused to trade an ailing Joe Crede and instead sent their best prospect down to the minors to toil in a league he was clearly overqualified for? The team managed by Ozzie Guillen? Yes, yes, and sadly, yes.
I thought it was really, really dumb when Ken Williams threw big money at Scott Linebrink, who had been regressing every year and was being overvalued for his salad days in San Diego. Four years? 19 million? Moving from the NL to the AL, a large park to a small park? Well, here's his line this year: 2.37 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 32/6 K/BB rate. I didn't even think this deal would look good for one month, let alone four years, but at least for 2008, Linebrink has been an incredibly piece in the major's best bullpen. Octavio Dotel? Two years, $11 million? For a chronically injured relief pitcher with a declining K/IP ratio? Here's his line: 3.07 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 63 K in 44 innings. I laughed at both these deals because they seemed silly; here's a team, coming off a 90 loss season, that really thinks they have a shot in a division ruled by a surging Indians team and a Tigers team that just dropped a ton of money and talent on impact players. Instead, some strange things happened.
The Sox acquired Carlos Quentin, a talented but often injured young outfielder, from the Diamondbacks for Chris Carter, a 20 year old who had just hit 25 home runs in A-ball. Well, the D-Backs ended up flipping Carter for Danny Haren, which is all well and good. But Quentin, a guy who hit .214/.298/.349 in 81 games with the D-Backs last season, has been sensational. He's the impact corner outfield bat that Arizona is so sorely lacking. Quentin wasn't even guaranteed an everyday spot in Chicago. But this year he's hit 23 home runs, become an All-Star, and has been maybe the reason that the Pale Hose are sitting pretty atop their division. His line is .280/.380/.533 and he's knocked in 71 runs in 94 games, posting an OPS+ of 139.
Then there's the rotation. Gavin Floyd was cast off to the Sox by the Phillies, having worn out his welcome by stubbornly refusing to live up to his great potential. The Phils, an organization desperate to develop starting pitching, dealt a 23-year-old pitcher with a filthy curveball. That's how confident they were that he wouldn't amount to much. Well, he's got 10 wins and an ERA of 3.52. John Danks was in a similar situation in Texas. He was part of the vaunted D-V-D trio of pitching prospects the Rangers were developing - Danks, Volquez, and Diamond. You might know that Volquez guy. He's pretty decent. Texas basically gave up on all of these guys. They traded him to Chicago for Brandon McCarthy, who has been miserable or injured throughout his tenure with the Rangers. Meanwhile, Danks has blossomed this year - 7 wins, a 3.03 ERA, 97 Ks in 118 1/3 IP. Sidenote - can you imagine the Rangers rotation with Volquez and Danks in it? Can you even name a guy in their rotation now? (I guess that Josh Hamilton guy is OK, though).
Enough rambling - next I'll discuss some more weirdness throughout baseball (Cody Ross has more home runs than David Ortiz or Alfonso Soriano? Seriously? The Kansas City Royals are better than the Indians?) and delve into whether or not this is sustainable weirdness or more of a passing weirdness. We haven't even touched the Devil Rays.
The Twins traded one of the best pitchers of the decade this offseason, presumably entered "rebuilding" mode, and yet as of tonight they are 1/2 game back in the Central. I should know better by now, but I don't. Every year I look at the Twins roster with a mix of bemusement and disgust. Livan Hernandez is your ace? Mike Lamb is your starting 3rd baseman? You gave Nick Punto 472 at-bats last year? You traded Matt Garza? The Twins never look good to me on paper. They haven't for years. This year they looked particularly wretched, bad enough to keep the Royals some company near the cellar. And in a division with 2 powerhouses in Detroit and Cleveland (it's funny now, but it wasn't in April), they appeared to stand no chance whatsoever. Beyond Livan Hernandez, they were throwing out Kevin Slowey, Nick Blackburn, Scott Baker, and Glen Perkins, guys who all had pretty similar profiles - good minor league track records, but all command pitchers without much stuff who figured to get lit up if they were in the strike zone too much in the majors. Blackburn, in particular, figured to get pounded. He gave up nearly a hit per inning in the minors while striking out just 5.5 per 9. Here he is with 7 wins and a 3.65 ERA. How is that possible? The only weak link in what has turned out to be a very strong rotation has been Hernandez. As good and surprising as the Twins have been this year, can you imagine how much better they'd be if they decided to call up Francisco Liriano and DFA Livan Hernandez? Is it crazy to say he's worth at least 2 wins over the second half? As for the offense...would you believe they've outscored the Yankees by 27 runs? Neither would I.
So there they are. One-half of a game back. Behind which team, though? Behind the Indians, reigning Central champs and dudes who were one freaking game from the World Series last year? No sir. Behind the Tigers, you ask? Afraid not (and yeah, it feels awesome to have called that). They are 1/2 a game behind the...Chicago White Sox. Really? The White Sox? The PECOTA-hating weirdos who threw a ton of money at past-their-prime middle relievers this offseason? The team that refused to trade an ailing Joe Crede and instead sent their best prospect down to the minors to toil in a league he was clearly overqualified for? The team managed by Ozzie Guillen? Yes, yes, and sadly, yes.
I thought it was really, really dumb when Ken Williams threw big money at Scott Linebrink, who had been regressing every year and was being overvalued for his salad days in San Diego. Four years? 19 million? Moving from the NL to the AL, a large park to a small park? Well, here's his line this year: 2.37 ERA, 0.92 WHIP, 32/6 K/BB rate. I didn't even think this deal would look good for one month, let alone four years, but at least for 2008, Linebrink has been an incredibly piece in the major's best bullpen. Octavio Dotel? Two years, $11 million? For a chronically injured relief pitcher with a declining K/IP ratio? Here's his line: 3.07 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 63 K in 44 innings. I laughed at both these deals because they seemed silly; here's a team, coming off a 90 loss season, that really thinks they have a shot in a division ruled by a surging Indians team and a Tigers team that just dropped a ton of money and talent on impact players. Instead, some strange things happened.
The Sox acquired Carlos Quentin, a talented but often injured young outfielder, from the Diamondbacks for Chris Carter, a 20 year old who had just hit 25 home runs in A-ball. Well, the D-Backs ended up flipping Carter for Danny Haren, which is all well and good. But Quentin, a guy who hit .214/.298/.349 in 81 games with the D-Backs last season, has been sensational. He's the impact corner outfield bat that Arizona is so sorely lacking. Quentin wasn't even guaranteed an everyday spot in Chicago. But this year he's hit 23 home runs, become an All-Star, and has been maybe the reason that the Pale Hose are sitting pretty atop their division. His line is .280/.380/.533 and he's knocked in 71 runs in 94 games, posting an OPS+ of 139.
Then there's the rotation. Gavin Floyd was cast off to the Sox by the Phillies, having worn out his welcome by stubbornly refusing to live up to his great potential. The Phils, an organization desperate to develop starting pitching, dealt a 23-year-old pitcher with a filthy curveball. That's how confident they were that he wouldn't amount to much. Well, he's got 10 wins and an ERA of 3.52. John Danks was in a similar situation in Texas. He was part of the vaunted D-V-D trio of pitching prospects the Rangers were developing - Danks, Volquez, and Diamond. You might know that Volquez guy. He's pretty decent. Texas basically gave up on all of these guys. They traded him to Chicago for Brandon McCarthy, who has been miserable or injured throughout his tenure with the Rangers. Meanwhile, Danks has blossomed this year - 7 wins, a 3.03 ERA, 97 Ks in 118 1/3 IP. Sidenote - can you imagine the Rangers rotation with Volquez and Danks in it? Can you even name a guy in their rotation now? (I guess that Josh Hamilton guy is OK, though).
Enough rambling - next I'll discuss some more weirdness throughout baseball (Cody Ross has more home runs than David Ortiz or Alfonso Soriano? Seriously? The Kansas City Royals are better than the Indians?) and delve into whether or not this is sustainable weirdness or more of a passing weirdness. We haven't even touched the Devil Rays.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Overestimating Joba
It's reality check time, both for the Yankees and their fans. Joba will start for the Yankees against Toronto Tuesday night, marking his first appearance in the Yankees rotation and last out of the bullpen. At least, we hope.
Temper your expectations. We'd all like to believe that Joba's 95+ fastball and devastating slider will translate instantly to the starting rotation, his above average curve and changeup completing an arsenal that will devour major league hitters. And that may, in fact, happen. At least, we hope.
But the reality is, Joba is a 22 year old kid. The Yankees have thrown three kids into the rotation this year with less than stellar results. Philip Hughes is out until likely August with a fractured rib. Ian Kennedy followed with a strained right should after bouncing back and forth from triple AAA. Neither pitcher was setting the league on fire before their injury.
Joba probably won't either, despite his bullpen experience, and we shouldn't expect him to. All three pitchers have tremendous potential, but to expect one, nevermind all three, to achieve longterm success is blind optimism, if not downright crazy. Case in point: Mulder/Hudson/Zito. Three pitchers were a young dominant force for Oakland that has since struggled to stay healthy or effective.
This isn't to say that the three Yankee young will flame out. One, if not all if them, could very well be effective in the major leagues. You just can't expect great success from day one.
If it were that easy, everyone would do it.
Temper your expectations. We'd all like to believe that Joba's 95+ fastball and devastating slider will translate instantly to the starting rotation, his above average curve and changeup completing an arsenal that will devour major league hitters. And that may, in fact, happen. At least, we hope.
But the reality is, Joba is a 22 year old kid. The Yankees have thrown three kids into the rotation this year with less than stellar results. Philip Hughes is out until likely August with a fractured rib. Ian Kennedy followed with a strained right should after bouncing back and forth from triple AAA. Neither pitcher was setting the league on fire before their injury.
Joba probably won't either, despite his bullpen experience, and we shouldn't expect him to. All three pitchers have tremendous potential, but to expect one, nevermind all three, to achieve longterm success is blind optimism, if not downright crazy. Case in point: Mulder/Hudson/Zito. Three pitchers were a young dominant force for Oakland that has since struggled to stay healthy or effective.
This isn't to say that the three Yankee young will flame out. One, if not all if them, could very well be effective in the major leagues. You just can't expect great success from day one.
If it were that easy, everyone would do it.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A Few Thoughts On Roy Oswalt
I'm not a Houston Astros fan, but I can't help but notice how badly Roy Oswalt has struggled in his three starts this season. The reason is because I own him on a couple of fantasy teams. I watched his nightmarish start against the Marlins last week through my fingers, as he served up 4 home runs for the first time in his major league career over just 4 innings. When a pitcher as consistent as Roy Oswalt gives up 4 home runs in 4 innings, and 2 of the guys going deep are Mike Rabelo and Jorge Cantu, it's natural to assume that something might be wrong physically. Yet looking more closely at the pitches he's thrown tells a different and, I think, less troubling story.
Oswalt is a little out of whack, certainly. I can only speculate whether there's something wrong with him mechanically because I'm not an expert, or even an amateur, in breaking down pitchers' deliveries. Before we delve into what's different about Oswalt this year, let's recap his outings so far and how they compare to his career averages.
- Oswalt allowed 4 home runs in his last start against the Marlins, something he has never done in his career. He has given up as many as 3 just twice, once in 2003 and again in 2006. Interestingly, in both games, all three were solo home runs and were the only runs he allowed. He won both games.
- Oswalt has never allowed more than 18 home runs in a single season while averaging 222.1 innings a year. He has allowed 5 home runs in 16 IP this season.
- He didn't allow his 5th home run until his 8th start last season.
- He has given up 30 hits in 16 IP this season, spanning 3 starts. He allowed exactly 30 hits over his first 5 starts last season, spanning 35 innings.
- Oswalt didn't lose his third game until May 22nd last year, his 11th start. This year, 3 starts in and he's 0-3.
- Yet last year after 3 starts, Oswalt's K/BB was just 12/8, over 21.2 IP. This year, his K/BB is 12/2 over 16 IP.
It's that last bit of information that I think is most telling. Oswalt is in the strike zone. A lot. All up in the strike zone. He has a K:BB ratio of 6:1. This trumps his career K:BB of 3.63:1. That's awesome. You would typically expect a pitcher whose control improves that much to see his baseline statistics improve accordingly. That isn't the case here. Oswalt's career WHIP is an excellent 1.21; this year, he's sporting a WHIP of 2.00. So whatever gains Oswalt has temporarily made in terms of control, he's lost in the 30 hits he's allowed. Oswalt had a career high WHIP of 1.32, has seen his K/9 drop for a few years, and he's officially on the wrong side of 30, so there's evidence he could be in slight decline. But what we're seeing this year is nothing short of horrendous. Still, I don't expect it to last.
First, I have to thank this lovely man named Josh Kalk, who has this blog. His PitchFX plots are invaluable when doing this kind of research. Now, on to the goods - here are the percentages of pitches thrown by Oswalt.
Here are the links to Oswalt's 2007 player card and his 2008 card:
Let's compare his 2007 season through his 2008 season thus far:
2008: 70.09% Fastballs
13.08 Curveballs
14.02 Sliders
.93 Splitters
1.87 Cutters
2007: 65.53 Fastballs
17.09 Curveballs
13.09 Sliders
4.33 Changeups
What immediately jumps out is that Oswalt no longer features a changeup, or least hasn't yet featured a changeup. He has thrown 1 splitter and 2 cutters, however. What is preventing him from throwing his change? He threw only 47 of them last year, so it's primarily a show me pitch, but what has made him scrap it completely in favor of two pitches he's never featured? You can understand an unsuccessful guy tinkering with new pitches in an attempt to add a couple of years to his career, but we're talking about arguably one of the 3 most effective starting pitchers of the last 7 years. I don't think the absence of a changeup is causing Oswalt's issues, because again, he has never primarily featured it and it wasn't a plus pitch. I think it's just interesting to take note that a perennial Cy Young candidate finds it necessary to mess with his arsenal.
Already through 3 starts, Oswalt has worked himself into 3 ball counts 8 times, about 2.66 times per start. In 32 starts in 2007, he was in 41 3 ball counts, about 1.28 times per start. Which brings us to a quick conclusion: he's getting into more 3 ball counts, being forced to throw his fastball, and hitters are sitting on it. Major league hitters are fastball hitters. Even guys like Mike Rabelo, a relatively unproven player, can sit on one if they know or even suspect it's coming, and hit it a long way.
He's worked himself into only 4 0-2 counts in three starts. In 2-2 counts he's throwing his fastball 76.92% of the time, up from 62.5 last year. This is telling me he's afraid of working himself into 3-2 counts. On the 6 occasions he has worked 3-2 counts, he's thrown his fastball 6 times. He's also been in 2 3-1 counts and thrown his fastball on both occasions. This helps explain his 6:1 KK/BB ratio because he's been a 1 pitch pitcher in 3 ball counts.
I admit to not having seen Oswalt pitch more than a dozen times in my life because of where I live, but what I have always seen from him is a devastating spike curveball. That's his out pitch. So why isn't he throwing it more when he works himself into 2 strike counts? Let's look at the curveballs that he has thrown so far this year. He's throwing them nearly 5 MPH slower than in 2007 and there is less vertical and lateral movement on them. Meanwhile, both his fastball and slider are moving more than they did last year. So he must be having command issues. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with his fastball, as he's shown no significant loss in velocity, especially for April.
I think Oswalt is just trying to find his curveball right now. He has very good velocity and good control but seemingly very little command of any of his pitches - meaning they are in the strike zone, just not in the area of the strike zone that Oswalt intends them to be. Perhaps if he was spotting his fastball better or throwing his slider more, it would make up for the lack of depth and velocity in his curveball, but he's unable to do either of those right now. I'm not a medical professional but the fact that Oswalt's fastball velocity remains relatively unchanged doesn't raise any red flags for me. This could simply be a matter of a great pitcher struggling with the feel for his best pitch. I suspect it's mechanical but I'll leave that to this guy to decide.
Oswalt is a little out of whack, certainly. I can only speculate whether there's something wrong with him mechanically because I'm not an expert, or even an amateur, in breaking down pitchers' deliveries. Before we delve into what's different about Oswalt this year, let's recap his outings so far and how they compare to his career averages.
- Oswalt allowed 4 home runs in his last start against the Marlins, something he has never done in his career. He has given up as many as 3 just twice, once in 2003 and again in 2006. Interestingly, in both games, all three were solo home runs and were the only runs he allowed. He won both games.
- Oswalt has never allowed more than 18 home runs in a single season while averaging 222.1 innings a year. He has allowed 5 home runs in 16 IP this season.
- He didn't allow his 5th home run until his 8th start last season.
- He has given up 30 hits in 16 IP this season, spanning 3 starts. He allowed exactly 30 hits over his first 5 starts last season, spanning 35 innings.
- Oswalt didn't lose his third game until May 22nd last year, his 11th start. This year, 3 starts in and he's 0-3.
- Yet last year after 3 starts, Oswalt's K/BB was just 12/8, over 21.2 IP. This year, his K/BB is 12/2 over 16 IP.
It's that last bit of information that I think is most telling. Oswalt is in the strike zone. A lot. All up in the strike zone. He has a K:BB ratio of 6:1. This trumps his career K:BB of 3.63:1. That's awesome. You would typically expect a pitcher whose control improves that much to see his baseline statistics improve accordingly. That isn't the case here. Oswalt's career WHIP is an excellent 1.21; this year, he's sporting a WHIP of 2.00. So whatever gains Oswalt has temporarily made in terms of control, he's lost in the 30 hits he's allowed. Oswalt had a career high WHIP of 1.32, has seen his K/9 drop for a few years, and he's officially on the wrong side of 30, so there's evidence he could be in slight decline. But what we're seeing this year is nothing short of horrendous. Still, I don't expect it to last.
First, I have to thank this lovely man named Josh Kalk, who has this blog. His PitchFX plots are invaluable when doing this kind of research. Now, on to the goods - here are the percentages of pitches thrown by Oswalt.
Here are the links to Oswalt's 2007 player card and his 2008 card:
Let's compare his 2007 season through his 2008 season thus far:
2008: 70.09% Fastballs
13.08 Curveballs
14.02 Sliders
.93 Splitters
1.87 Cutters
2007: 65.53 Fastballs
17.09 Curveballs
13.09 Sliders
4.33 Changeups
What immediately jumps out is that Oswalt no longer features a changeup, or least hasn't yet featured a changeup. He has thrown 1 splitter and 2 cutters, however. What is preventing him from throwing his change? He threw only 47 of them last year, so it's primarily a show me pitch, but what has made him scrap it completely in favor of two pitches he's never featured? You can understand an unsuccessful guy tinkering with new pitches in an attempt to add a couple of years to his career, but we're talking about arguably one of the 3 most effective starting pitchers of the last 7 years. I don't think the absence of a changeup is causing Oswalt's issues, because again, he has never primarily featured it and it wasn't a plus pitch. I think it's just interesting to take note that a perennial Cy Young candidate finds it necessary to mess with his arsenal.
Already through 3 starts, Oswalt has worked himself into 3 ball counts 8 times, about 2.66 times per start. In 32 starts in 2007, he was in 41 3 ball counts, about 1.28 times per start. Which brings us to a quick conclusion: he's getting into more 3 ball counts, being forced to throw his fastball, and hitters are sitting on it. Major league hitters are fastball hitters. Even guys like Mike Rabelo, a relatively unproven player, can sit on one if they know or even suspect it's coming, and hit it a long way.
He's worked himself into only 4 0-2 counts in three starts. In 2-2 counts he's throwing his fastball 76.92% of the time, up from 62.5 last year. This is telling me he's afraid of working himself into 3-2 counts. On the 6 occasions he has worked 3-2 counts, he's thrown his fastball 6 times. He's also been in 2 3-1 counts and thrown his fastball on both occasions. This helps explain his 6:1 KK/BB ratio because he's been a 1 pitch pitcher in 3 ball counts.
I admit to not having seen Oswalt pitch more than a dozen times in my life because of where I live, but what I have always seen from him is a devastating spike curveball. That's his out pitch. So why isn't he throwing it more when he works himself into 2 strike counts? Let's look at the curveballs that he has thrown so far this year. He's throwing them nearly 5 MPH slower than in 2007 and there is less vertical and lateral movement on them. Meanwhile, both his fastball and slider are moving more than they did last year. So he must be having command issues. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with his fastball, as he's shown no significant loss in velocity, especially for April.
I think Oswalt is just trying to find his curveball right now. He has very good velocity and good control but seemingly very little command of any of his pitches - meaning they are in the strike zone, just not in the area of the strike zone that Oswalt intends them to be. Perhaps if he was spotting his fastball better or throwing his slider more, it would make up for the lack of depth and velocity in his curveball, but he's unable to do either of those right now. I'm not a medical professional but the fact that Oswalt's fastball velocity remains relatively unchanged doesn't raise any red flags for me. This could simply be a matter of a great pitcher struggling with the feel for his best pitch. I suspect it's mechanical but I'll leave that to this guy to decide.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Soria Should Be Starting
The intro to Buster Olney's blog today featured a story about Joakim Soria, the Royals young closer, who many are likening to a young Mariano Rivera. I watch the Royals as much as I possibly can - not because I'm a masochist, but because I have tons of family in Kansas City who are die-hards and I like to be able to keep up with them when they talk. I remember back to last spring, thinking that the Royals potentially had scored a coup when they selected Soria in the Rule V draft. Then, a few days later, he pitched a perfect game in Mexican winter ball, and Kevin Towers was presumably rather angry at himself. And so far, so good - Soria posted a 189 ERA+ in 69 high-leverage innings last year, and he looked absolutely filthy this week, striking out 10 batters in 5 innings and saving 3 games.
So the Mo comparisons are apt in that respect - both pitchers have devastating stuff. And they both throw cut fastballs. Yet Soria is still a month shy of his 24th birthday, and by all accounts has at least 3 plus pitches - the aforementioned cutter, a wicked change with terrific arm-side tail, and a big 12-to-6 yakker. He throws all these pitches in the strike zone and as recently as one year ago, had the stamina to hold his stuff into the 9th inning and finish off a perfect game. So, with all due respect, what in the world is this guy doing pitching one inning a night, and only when the Royals have the lead (which, in the course of recent events, has been rare)?
As a Yankees fan (don't hold it against me), I understand the value of a dominant closer as well as anyone. But what made Rivera such an ideal candidate for a move from the rotation to the bullpen - namely that he has only one true plus pitch - is what makes Soria's emergence as a closer rather frustrating. Closers should always be a luxury item for small-market teams, and they should be traded once their value is at its peak as a surefire way of restocking a farm system. Tampa Bay did this a couple of years ago with Danys Baez, trading him to the Dodgers for Edwin Jackson. Granted, Jackson hasn't panned out, but he remains a young starter with electric stuff, and he was acquired for a relief pitcher who has been either hurt or ineffective ever since. Last year, the Pirates turned Mike Gonzalez into Adam LaRoche. Even more recently, Arizona traded Jose Valverde, fresh off a season in which he saved 47 games and received an MVP vote an finished 6th in the Cy Young voting, for 3 players. This is a guy who was one year removed from an ERA of 5.84. Now, one good year and 47 saves later, he's worth three players.
It's always been my belief that closers - merely reasonably effective closers, not studs like Rivera, Nathan, or Papelbon - more or less grow on trees. They might be failed starters, they might be setup men who need only the opportunity, they might be 38 year-old Japanese men with funky deliveries, they might even be homophobic pot-bellied men with stupid facial hair. The point is, if you look hard enough, you can usually find one. What is increasingly difficult to find, however, is a good starting pitcher, and that's exactly what Joakim Soria has a great chance to be. Joe Nathan is closing because he couldn't hack it as a starter; we don't know this for sure about Joakim Soria. He deserves every chance to prove this to the Royals before he's branded closer of the present. The Indians, more than any recent team I can recall, proved last year that you don't need a dominant, lights-out guy in the 9th inning to win a division, and their failing at reaching the World Series didn't have anything to do with Borowski, as many predicted it would. Making the decision to start Joakim Soria over a John Bale or a Brett Tomko every 5th day would figure to be a massive improvement.
And yes, you could replace any instances of "Joakim Soria" with "Joba Chamberlain" and "Royals" with "Yankees" and you've pretty much have my take on that one as well.
Other cool stuff this week: Johnny Cueto and Edinson Volquez combined to strike out 18 over 12 2/3 IP for the Reds. The baseball gods do have a sense of humor, because Dusty Baker might be the only manager in baseball who could mess this up...Josh Hamilton golfed a JJ Putz fastball off his shoetops into the right field stands in Seattle to give Texas a win on Tuesday. I know spring statistics are generally meaningless, but Hamilton was unreal all of March and he's taken it with him into April. He's become someone whose every at-bat is unmissable...The Tigers got trounced 13-2 on Sunday to drop to 0-6, and Miguel Cabrera was booed as he bounced into his second double play of the evening. The honeymoon ended pretty quick there. Steve Phillips called the Tigers offense "the best in the history of baseball" on Baseball Tonight, and that was before Opening Day even happened. I will enjoy this week of looking like a genius.
So the Mo comparisons are apt in that respect - both pitchers have devastating stuff. And they both throw cut fastballs. Yet Soria is still a month shy of his 24th birthday, and by all accounts has at least 3 plus pitches - the aforementioned cutter, a wicked change with terrific arm-side tail, and a big 12-to-6 yakker. He throws all these pitches in the strike zone and as recently as one year ago, had the stamina to hold his stuff into the 9th inning and finish off a perfect game. So, with all due respect, what in the world is this guy doing pitching one inning a night, and only when the Royals have the lead (which, in the course of recent events, has been rare)?
As a Yankees fan (don't hold it against me), I understand the value of a dominant closer as well as anyone. But what made Rivera such an ideal candidate for a move from the rotation to the bullpen - namely that he has only one true plus pitch - is what makes Soria's emergence as a closer rather frustrating. Closers should always be a luxury item for small-market teams, and they should be traded once their value is at its peak as a surefire way of restocking a farm system. Tampa Bay did this a couple of years ago with Danys Baez, trading him to the Dodgers for Edwin Jackson. Granted, Jackson hasn't panned out, but he remains a young starter with electric stuff, and he was acquired for a relief pitcher who has been either hurt or ineffective ever since. Last year, the Pirates turned Mike Gonzalez into Adam LaRoche. Even more recently, Arizona traded Jose Valverde, fresh off a season in which he saved 47 games and received an MVP vote an finished 6th in the Cy Young voting, for 3 players. This is a guy who was one year removed from an ERA of 5.84. Now, one good year and 47 saves later, he's worth three players.
It's always been my belief that closers - merely reasonably effective closers, not studs like Rivera, Nathan, or Papelbon - more or less grow on trees. They might be failed starters, they might be setup men who need only the opportunity, they might be 38 year-old Japanese men with funky deliveries, they might even be homophobic pot-bellied men with stupid facial hair. The point is, if you look hard enough, you can usually find one. What is increasingly difficult to find, however, is a good starting pitcher, and that's exactly what Joakim Soria has a great chance to be. Joe Nathan is closing because he couldn't hack it as a starter; we don't know this for sure about Joakim Soria. He deserves every chance to prove this to the Royals before he's branded closer of the present. The Indians, more than any recent team I can recall, proved last year that you don't need a dominant, lights-out guy in the 9th inning to win a division, and their failing at reaching the World Series didn't have anything to do with Borowski, as many predicted it would. Making the decision to start Joakim Soria over a John Bale or a Brett Tomko every 5th day would figure to be a massive improvement.
And yes, you could replace any instances of "Joakim Soria" with "Joba Chamberlain" and "Royals" with "Yankees" and you've pretty much have my take on that one as well.
Other cool stuff this week: Johnny Cueto and Edinson Volquez combined to strike out 18 over 12 2/3 IP for the Reds. The baseball gods do have a sense of humor, because Dusty Baker might be the only manager in baseball who could mess this up...Josh Hamilton golfed a JJ Putz fastball off his shoetops into the right field stands in Seattle to give Texas a win on Tuesday. I know spring statistics are generally meaningless, but Hamilton was unreal all of March and he's taken it with him into April. He's become someone whose every at-bat is unmissable...The Tigers got trounced 13-2 on Sunday to drop to 0-6, and Miguel Cabrera was booed as he bounced into his second double play of the evening. The honeymoon ended pretty quick there. Steve Phillips called the Tigers offense "the best in the history of baseball" on Baseball Tonight, and that was before Opening Day even happened. I will enjoy this week of looking like a genius.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Girardi and the Bench
Three games in for the Yankees and I think Joe Girardi deserves good marks. There hasn't been a hell of a lot to judge him on, but he hasn't screwed anything up yet either.
I do take issue with two things:
1 - I think he left Moose in for a batter too long on Wednesday. This whole notion that a starting pitcher has the right to try and finish an inning is a bit ludicrous. Moose doesn't have an outpitch and was getting himself into trouble the entire game. A few DPs saved his arse from having a very rough outing. If you're willing to bring in Hawkins, a right hander as well, to get one out, bring him in for two. You're pretty much guaranteed he's got more stuff than Moose.
2 - Giambi facing a lefty in the seventh inning? Really?
I don't know if this is a comment on the need for Giambi's offense (currently in an O-for) or a comment of the lack of defense off the bench, but either way, Giambi will be on the DL by May at this rate. Girardi needs to get the bench involved, not only to get them playing but to avoid a minor mutiny. You can't play guys just to make them happy, but you also can't completely avoid your bench for three days either.
I do take issue with two things:
1 - I think he left Moose in for a batter too long on Wednesday. This whole notion that a starting pitcher has the right to try and finish an inning is a bit ludicrous. Moose doesn't have an outpitch and was getting himself into trouble the entire game. A few DPs saved his arse from having a very rough outing. If you're willing to bring in Hawkins, a right hander as well, to get one out, bring him in for two. You're pretty much guaranteed he's got more stuff than Moose.
2 - Giambi facing a lefty in the seventh inning? Really?
I don't know if this is a comment on the need for Giambi's offense (currently in an O-for) or a comment of the lack of defense off the bench, but either way, Giambi will be on the DL by May at this rate. Girardi needs to get the bench involved, not only to get them playing but to avoid a minor mutiny. You can't play guys just to make them happy, but you also can't completely avoid your bench for three days either.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Battling Conventional Wisdom: Why the Tigers Aren't The Team to Beat in the AL Central
Every year, each division seems to have a trendy pick. A few offseason additions can suddenly make last year's 88 win-team this year's World Series favorite. In 2005, the Mets added Carlos Beltran and Pedro Martinez and seemed to have positioned themselves as a team to beat. They ended up with 83 wins, good for 3rd in the NL East.
In 2006, there was a buzz around the Red Sox in the AL East following the additions of Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell from the Florida firesale. While Lowell produced, Beckett responded with an ERA+ of 95 and the Sox finished 3rd in the AL East, well shy of the playoffs.
Just last year, the Brewers stormed out of the gate looking like the NL's answer to the previous year's Tigers, who shocked a lot of people by winning their division and making a deep playoff run. Milwaukee ended up an 83 win team, 2 games behind the Cubs.
The point being, lots of teams look great on paper in March and wind up on the couch in October. Is there a team that fits this bill for 2008? I humbly submit that the Detroit Tigers just might.
Let's recap the Tigers' offseason. First, they traded Jair Jurrjens to Atlanta for Edgar Renteria, allowing them to shift Carlos Guillen to 1B, making them offensively and defensively better at both positions. Two weeks later, they acquired Jacque Jones from the Cubs for Omar Infante. Jones effectively replaced Marcus Thames in left field, giving Detroit an outfield of Jones, Curtis Granderson, and Magglio Ordonez.
Next came the biggest transaction of the offseason, the one that firmly cemented the Tigers as the Central's team to beat in 2008 - they acquired Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis from the Marlins for prospects Andrew Miller, Cameron Maybin, Mike Rabelo, Dallas Trahern, Eulogio De La Cruz and Burke Badenhop. Unofficially, their 2008 lineup should look something like this:
CF Curtis Granderson
2B Placido Polanco
RF Magglio Ordonez
DH Gary Sheffield
3B Miguel Cabrera
1B Carlos Guillen
SS Edgar Renteria
C Ivan Rodriguez
LF Jacque Jones
Fiddle with the lineup any way you like (and I might like to, because the middle of that lineup is awfully right-handed) and you still have a team that looks like it has a decent shot at scoring 1000 runs. Now their projected 2008 rotation:
RHP Justin Verlander
LHP Kenny Rogers
RHP Jeremy Bonderman
LHP Dontrelle Willis
LHP Nate Robertson
Looking superficially at the improvements the Tigers have made to their team, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they'll catapult over the Indians as Central favorites, and failing that, still have a great shot at claiming the Wild Card from the Yankees.
Not so fast.
Something wasn't sitting right with me about the 2008 Tigers. Certainly they appeared to have the makings of a formidable offense and a reasonably deep rotation, especially if you think like I do that Verlander and Bonderman haven't yet reached the apex of their abilities. But I wasn't at all excited about Dontrelle Willis moving to the American League after 2 consecutive down years, not sold on Kenny Rogers or Bonderman's ability to stay healthy or effective, and not a big Nate Robertson fan. I wasn't convinced that the breakout season Granderson had in 2007 was entirely for real, not confident in Ordonez's ability to repeat his MVP-caliber year, pretty sure Renteria would regress to the mean, and positive that Gary Sheffield would injure himself at some point.
Most of my concerns were echoed by Bill James' projections in his 2008 handbook, then confirmed by the folks at Baseball Prospectus in their new annual.
The BP tome has a bunch of great little statistical tables thrown in as an appendix this season. One that caught my eye off the bat was entitled "VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) Decrease from 2007", which compares a player's 2007 VORP with their PECOTA (BP's awesome projection system) projected 2008 VORP. There are 15 players listed and 3 of them are Detroit Tigers. First on the list is Magglio Ordonez, projected to fall from a VORP of 87.8 to 31.1. Last year, Ordonez hit .363/.434/.595 - PECOTA is pegging him this year at .306/.376/.485. This is obviously a line that 98% of all MLB players would love to hit; however it has to be noted that he could lose 50 points of average, 60 points of OBP. and 110 points of SLG. This would not put him in the running for an MVP award in 2008.
Number 3 on BP's list is Curtis Granderson, projected to fall from a VORP of 67.3 to 26.2. They see a precipitous drop-off from his 2007 line of .302/.361/.552 to a 2008 line of .267/.339/.467. That's a nose-dive. It makes Granderson's OBP below-average for a leadoff hitter and cuts his SLG by nearly 100 points. It turns him from a fringe MVP candidate to a good complementary hitter. Part of Granderson's problem is his total inability to touch left-handed pitching; he hit .160/.225/.269 against lefties and in his career has struck out 30% of the time when facing them. Seeing that line, it's amazing to think he managed to hit .302, and it'd be foolish to think he'd be able to do so again without seriously altering his approach against lefties. At 27 he definitely isn't too old to change his ways, but 2 1/2 seasons have showed him to be an atrocious hitter against southpaws and last season he even regressed against them, having a career 202/.265/.366 against lefties.
Tied for 12th on the VORP loss list is new SS Edgar Renteria. BP thinks he'll shed 29.4 points of VORP, dropping from 47.5 to 18.1. Last season, Renteria hit an improbable .332/.390/.470. This year, he's projected by BP to hit .279/.343/.393. The former line from a SS is another fringe MVP candidate; the latter line is acceptable, above-average, but far from spectacular. It's conventional wisdom that Renteria's glove is a vast improvement over Guillen's, but in reality he's projected to be -4 Fielding Runs Above Average in 2008 while Guillen is projected to be -3 FRAA as a SS.
Not included in this table is 2B Placido Polanco, but his projected VORP loss of 26.7 should be noted as well, as it narrowly misses making the cut. Ditto Gary Sheffield, whose days as an impact hitter seem to be coming to a close. In his age 39 season, he's pegged at .274/.374/.462 and BP has him down for only 414 total plate appearances, probably due to his age and increased risk of injury. The above line would actually be welcome from Sheffield; it's how many at-bats he does it in that makes the difference, because his replacement is likely to be well below average. Detroit's system lacks an impact bat that's big-league ready and their bench doesn't provide anyone capable of replicating that kind of production.
Without going into more detail than anyone cares to read and having the wonderful people at Baseball Prospectus sue me for giving away too many of their secrets for free, I'll conclude with this: every member of the Detroit starting 9 is predicted to lose VORP off their 2007 scores, with Jacque Jones the worst of the bunch, managing a meager .9 score. This doesn't mean their offense will be bad - what it means is that it won't be as good as everyone thinks it will be, which is 1000 runs good. It's a lineup with a lot of potential for greatness, but also a lot of potential for regression and injury. So let's not crown them the second coming of the '27 Yankees just yet.
We haven't even gotten to their pitching. Briefly, we'll run through their rotation again, with their projected ERA, VORP, and VORP gain/loss:
Verlander - 3.93 / 34.7 / -11.2
Rogers - 4.66 / 7.4 / +1.8
Bonderman - 3.83 / 30.5 / +20.4
LHP Dontrelle Willis - 4.55 / /+19.3 / 18.6
LHP Nate Robertson - 4.42 / +20.3 / .7
So that's a positive, right? Four of the five are projected to gain VORP, and even Verlander's PECOTA stats seem a bit on the pessimistic side for me. I think he's a potential ace, whether he gets there this year or next. But a few things do stand out. Number one, the Tigers nominal 5th starter, Nate Robertson, could have a higher VORP rating and better ERA than Dontrelle Willis, for whom the Tigers just mortgaged their long-term future. Baseball Prospectus thinks that Willis has room for improvement, even in switching leagues, because the defense in Florida was so awful - and while I do agree, he'll still have the same bad third baseman he had last year and his defensive gains have to be mitigated by the fact that he's in a beast of a division and he's moving from a pitcher's park to a neutral park.
Number two, Kenny Rogers being relied upon in any capacity is a dicey proposition. While I respect most of what Rogers has accomplished in his career with fringe-average stuff, he'll be 43 and spent the vast majority of last year on the DL. When he wasn't on the DL, he was bad. Will any of this change? Does Rogers really have an upside at this point? What value does a league average innings eater have when he's no longer league average or able to eat any innings? With Andrew Miller off to Florida and Jair Jurrjens off to Atlanta, the Tigers don't have many in-house starting pitching options to turn to should anybody suffer an injury. This means they'll go back to relying on the Jason Grillis and Chad (or was it JD?) Durbins of the world, and we saw how well that worked out for Detroit last year.
Speaking of Andrew Miller, what does it say when the 23 year-old left-handed starting pitcher you traded has nearly as good a shot at being league average as 3 of your 5 starting pitchers, only with more upside? Miller was handled lousily by Detroit anyway, so he's probably better off with another team, but are the Tigers better off without him? For as much positive press as the superdeal with the Marlins got, you have to wonder whether the Tigers might have been better off stashing Miller in AAA waiting for the next Kenny Rogers injury, sticking Jair Jurrjens in their rotation, and signing a 3rd baseman or sticking with Brandon Inge. This is without considering the upside of Cameron Maybin or any of the other prospects the Marlins got.
Also, Todd Jones is still the closer. I don't think I need to go any further here.
All this said, am I being pessimistic? Absolutely. I think Verlander and Bonderman could take big leaps forward and become a dominant 1-2. I think Miguel Cabrera could be a monster in a good lineup. But I also see a team with some players clearly on the downside of their career that could either miss time or be ineffective. I see some ridiculous expectations being placed upon players who haven't won anything yet. And I see a great team in Cleveland that was a win away from the World Series, as well as improving teams in Kansas City and Chicago. Those teams won't be giving away W's to their division rivals anymore. The Tigers have as good a shot as anyone at winning 95 games and the World Series. But as every lazy writer in America will tell you, teams don't win games on paper. So here's another one: teams don't win games on paper. Don't crown the Tigers just yet.
In 2006, there was a buzz around the Red Sox in the AL East following the additions of Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell from the Florida firesale. While Lowell produced, Beckett responded with an ERA+ of 95 and the Sox finished 3rd in the AL East, well shy of the playoffs.
Just last year, the Brewers stormed out of the gate looking like the NL's answer to the previous year's Tigers, who shocked a lot of people by winning their division and making a deep playoff run. Milwaukee ended up an 83 win team, 2 games behind the Cubs.
The point being, lots of teams look great on paper in March and wind up on the couch in October. Is there a team that fits this bill for 2008? I humbly submit that the Detroit Tigers just might.
Let's recap the Tigers' offseason. First, they traded Jair Jurrjens to Atlanta for Edgar Renteria, allowing them to shift Carlos Guillen to 1B, making them offensively and defensively better at both positions. Two weeks later, they acquired Jacque Jones from the Cubs for Omar Infante. Jones effectively replaced Marcus Thames in left field, giving Detroit an outfield of Jones, Curtis Granderson, and Magglio Ordonez.
Next came the biggest transaction of the offseason, the one that firmly cemented the Tigers as the Central's team to beat in 2008 - they acquired Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis from the Marlins for prospects Andrew Miller, Cameron Maybin, Mike Rabelo, Dallas Trahern, Eulogio De La Cruz and Burke Badenhop. Unofficially, their 2008 lineup should look something like this:
CF Curtis Granderson
2B Placido Polanco
RF Magglio Ordonez
DH Gary Sheffield
3B Miguel Cabrera
1B Carlos Guillen
SS Edgar Renteria
C Ivan Rodriguez
LF Jacque Jones
Fiddle with the lineup any way you like (and I might like to, because the middle of that lineup is awfully right-handed) and you still have a team that looks like it has a decent shot at scoring 1000 runs. Now their projected 2008 rotation:
RHP Justin Verlander
LHP Kenny Rogers
RHP Jeremy Bonderman
LHP Dontrelle Willis
LHP Nate Robertson
Looking superficially at the improvements the Tigers have made to their team, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they'll catapult over the Indians as Central favorites, and failing that, still have a great shot at claiming the Wild Card from the Yankees.
Not so fast.
Something wasn't sitting right with me about the 2008 Tigers. Certainly they appeared to have the makings of a formidable offense and a reasonably deep rotation, especially if you think like I do that Verlander and Bonderman haven't yet reached the apex of their abilities. But I wasn't at all excited about Dontrelle Willis moving to the American League after 2 consecutive down years, not sold on Kenny Rogers or Bonderman's ability to stay healthy or effective, and not a big Nate Robertson fan. I wasn't convinced that the breakout season Granderson had in 2007 was entirely for real, not confident in Ordonez's ability to repeat his MVP-caliber year, pretty sure Renteria would regress to the mean, and positive that Gary Sheffield would injure himself at some point.
Most of my concerns were echoed by Bill James' projections in his 2008 handbook, then confirmed by the folks at Baseball Prospectus in their new annual.
The BP tome has a bunch of great little statistical tables thrown in as an appendix this season. One that caught my eye off the bat was entitled "VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) Decrease from 2007", which compares a player's 2007 VORP with their PECOTA (BP's awesome projection system) projected 2008 VORP. There are 15 players listed and 3 of them are Detroit Tigers. First on the list is Magglio Ordonez, projected to fall from a VORP of 87.8 to 31.1. Last year, Ordonez hit .363/.434/.595 - PECOTA is pegging him this year at .306/.376/.485. This is obviously a line that 98% of all MLB players would love to hit; however it has to be noted that he could lose 50 points of average, 60 points of OBP. and 110 points of SLG. This would not put him in the running for an MVP award in 2008.
Number 3 on BP's list is Curtis Granderson, projected to fall from a VORP of 67.3 to 26.2. They see a precipitous drop-off from his 2007 line of .302/.361/.552 to a 2008 line of .267/.339/.467. That's a nose-dive. It makes Granderson's OBP below-average for a leadoff hitter and cuts his SLG by nearly 100 points. It turns him from a fringe MVP candidate to a good complementary hitter. Part of Granderson's problem is his total inability to touch left-handed pitching; he hit .160/.225/.269 against lefties and in his career has struck out 30% of the time when facing them. Seeing that line, it's amazing to think he managed to hit .302, and it'd be foolish to think he'd be able to do so again without seriously altering his approach against lefties. At 27 he definitely isn't too old to change his ways, but 2 1/2 seasons have showed him to be an atrocious hitter against southpaws and last season he even regressed against them, having a career 202/.265/.366 against lefties.
Tied for 12th on the VORP loss list is new SS Edgar Renteria. BP thinks he'll shed 29.4 points of VORP, dropping from 47.5 to 18.1. Last season, Renteria hit an improbable .332/.390/.470. This year, he's projected by BP to hit .279/.343/.393. The former line from a SS is another fringe MVP candidate; the latter line is acceptable, above-average, but far from spectacular. It's conventional wisdom that Renteria's glove is a vast improvement over Guillen's, but in reality he's projected to be -4 Fielding Runs Above Average in 2008 while Guillen is projected to be -3 FRAA as a SS.
Not included in this table is 2B Placido Polanco, but his projected VORP loss of 26.7 should be noted as well, as it narrowly misses making the cut. Ditto Gary Sheffield, whose days as an impact hitter seem to be coming to a close. In his age 39 season, he's pegged at .274/.374/.462 and BP has him down for only 414 total plate appearances, probably due to his age and increased risk of injury. The above line would actually be welcome from Sheffield; it's how many at-bats he does it in that makes the difference, because his replacement is likely to be well below average. Detroit's system lacks an impact bat that's big-league ready and their bench doesn't provide anyone capable of replicating that kind of production.
Without going into more detail than anyone cares to read and having the wonderful people at Baseball Prospectus sue me for giving away too many of their secrets for free, I'll conclude with this: every member of the Detroit starting 9 is predicted to lose VORP off their 2007 scores, with Jacque Jones the worst of the bunch, managing a meager .9 score. This doesn't mean their offense will be bad - what it means is that it won't be as good as everyone thinks it will be, which is 1000 runs good. It's a lineup with a lot of potential for greatness, but also a lot of potential for regression and injury. So let's not crown them the second coming of the '27 Yankees just yet.
We haven't even gotten to their pitching. Briefly, we'll run through their rotation again, with their projected ERA, VORP, and VORP gain/loss:
Verlander - 3.93 / 34.7 / -11.2
Rogers - 4.66 / 7.4 / +1.8
Bonderman - 3.83 / 30.5 / +20.4
LHP Dontrelle Willis - 4.55 / /+19.3 / 18.6
LHP Nate Robertson - 4.42 / +20.3 / .7
So that's a positive, right? Four of the five are projected to gain VORP, and even Verlander's PECOTA stats seem a bit on the pessimistic side for me. I think he's a potential ace, whether he gets there this year or next. But a few things do stand out. Number one, the Tigers nominal 5th starter, Nate Robertson, could have a higher VORP rating and better ERA than Dontrelle Willis, for whom the Tigers just mortgaged their long-term future. Baseball Prospectus thinks that Willis has room for improvement, even in switching leagues, because the defense in Florida was so awful - and while I do agree, he'll still have the same bad third baseman he had last year and his defensive gains have to be mitigated by the fact that he's in a beast of a division and he's moving from a pitcher's park to a neutral park.
Number two, Kenny Rogers being relied upon in any capacity is a dicey proposition. While I respect most of what Rogers has accomplished in his career with fringe-average stuff, he'll be 43 and spent the vast majority of last year on the DL. When he wasn't on the DL, he was bad. Will any of this change? Does Rogers really have an upside at this point? What value does a league average innings eater have when he's no longer league average or able to eat any innings? With Andrew Miller off to Florida and Jair Jurrjens off to Atlanta, the Tigers don't have many in-house starting pitching options to turn to should anybody suffer an injury. This means they'll go back to relying on the Jason Grillis and Chad (or was it JD?) Durbins of the world, and we saw how well that worked out for Detroit last year.
Speaking of Andrew Miller, what does it say when the 23 year-old left-handed starting pitcher you traded has nearly as good a shot at being league average as 3 of your 5 starting pitchers, only with more upside? Miller was handled lousily by Detroit anyway, so he's probably better off with another team, but are the Tigers better off without him? For as much positive press as the superdeal with the Marlins got, you have to wonder whether the Tigers might have been better off stashing Miller in AAA waiting for the next Kenny Rogers injury, sticking Jair Jurrjens in their rotation, and signing a 3rd baseman or sticking with Brandon Inge. This is without considering the upside of Cameron Maybin or any of the other prospects the Marlins got.
Also, Todd Jones is still the closer. I don't think I need to go any further here.
All this said, am I being pessimistic? Absolutely. I think Verlander and Bonderman could take big leaps forward and become a dominant 1-2. I think Miguel Cabrera could be a monster in a good lineup. But I also see a team with some players clearly on the downside of their career that could either miss time or be ineffective. I see some ridiculous expectations being placed upon players who haven't won anything yet. And I see a great team in Cleveland that was a win away from the World Series, as well as improving teams in Kansas City and Chicago. Those teams won't be giving away W's to their division rivals anymore. The Tigers have as good a shot as anyone at winning 95 games and the World Series. But as every lazy writer in America will tell you, teams don't win games on paper. So here's another one: teams don't win games on paper. Don't crown the Tigers just yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
