Starting Pitching Health last words
I spent the last 2 posts talking about the Nats likelihood of facing an injury to a starting pitcher and while that still holds true, I may have sold short their ability to have 4 healthy starters all year. Yes, these great healthy rotations fall apart because of injury, but they also fall apart because of free agency. The reliable pitcher goes away and the team is forced to replace him with someone less reliable. That's not a problem the Nats face with their main four. I looked at the last 5 teams to have 5 starters hit 30+ starts and instead of seeing how they did do the following year, I looked at how they would have done if everyone stayed. (You might have seen this in the last comments - but hey not everyone reads those)
06 WhiteSox - 4
05 Indians - 3
05 Cardinals - 4 (though Morris was terrible and probably hurt)
03 Mariners - 3 (misread this originally)
93 Dodgers - can't be sure, strike year but 4 likely.
Bolstering my theory that an injury will happen, no one would have replicated five healthy starters. It's just THAT hard to keep five guys throwing 200IP healthy all year. But two teams would have hit the 4 level, and another one would have likely also done it if not for the strike. More importantly, no one would have crashed to the "only 2 healthy starter" level. Personally that's the level the Nats would have to get to for me to worry about their playoff chances. (So in other words - to reiterate - pitcher injury will happen but alone is not a worry)
Danny is good
Rendon hit a home run! It's time to begin talk of replacing someone!
Last year, prior to the season, the prevailing theme was "Ian is no good! Trade him and move Danny over! Let Rendon play 2nd". Then Ian had a breakout year. Now the talk is "Danny is no good! Trade Danny and let Rendon play 2nd!" The problem is that Danny IS good.
Danny does strikeout a lot and had an off-year hitting. With his pop though, it was still good enough to be average for a 2nd baseman. His speed? Above average. His fielding? Among the best in the majors. Basically Danny does nothing wrong. It depends on how you look at the defense but last year Danny was somewhere between average and above average.And this is the guy you want to replace? With a guy who primarily projects to be a 3rd baseman?
I feel like this is a "don't know what you've got till it's gone situation". With a slight improvement at the plate (really it would not take much) Danny is a Top 5 type 2nd baseman. Danny is 26, team controlled until 2017 and by all accounts a decent fella. This is not the type of player you eye for replacement.I know we're always fascinated by the next big thing but it's not the Espinosas that good teams deal. It's the Skoles and Moores. The guys that haven't produced full-time in the majors and might be overproducing now.
(What should they do with Rendon? Well IF he does well enough in AA - you play him all over the infield in September. Then you begin the grooming process for which corner spot you want him to take. Hell - maybe it will be 2nd base even but the 2013 season is going to decide that, not a couple homers in Florida and the fact Danny struck out too much in 2012)
Christian Garcia
Seriously. Usually I defer to the judgement of the guys in charge because they know this team better than me, but the whole Garcia to starter move was one that I couldn't agree with. So many injuries, so long since he's pitched even close to a starters level of innings. It just didn't make sense. Now he's injured. Still they persist with this starter fantasy. Stop it. Honestly. Stop it. Squeeze what use you can from this broken arm and move on. (I don't expect them to. Rizzo is loathe to admit defeat - see "The 100 Chances of Wang")
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Why not this pitching staff?
Yesterday I told you that it's very unlikely that the Nats pitching staff would go through 2013 without a serious injury and next to impossible that they'd be able to stay complete healthy all the way until the end of 2014. But still a couple teams have done that in the past 20 years and the Nats staff is supposed to be special. Why CAN'T the Nats do it? I'll leave the kicker until the end but first let's look at the teams that did it.
2005-2008 White Sox
Four consecutive years of 4 guys with 30 or more starts. That's mighty impressive. How'd they do it? They mixed home grown talent with savvy FA signings.
The first crew to do it was Mark Buehrle, Jon Garland, Freddy Garcia, and Jose Contreras. Buehrle and Garland were home grown guys, younger, and already had a history of lots of starts (4 years in a row of 30+ for Mark, 3 for Jon). They brought in Garcia who had a 4 year streak of his own coming from Seattle. Only Contreras was the gamble. He was supposedly a rubber-arm Cuban but spent parts of 2003 dealing with one thing or another. The White Sox gambled on him and won.
The following year this group would be joined by Javy Vasquez who also had a long history of 30+ starts (6 years in a row before coming to the White Sox) and they got the perfect 5 guys all staying healthy all year.
Freddy Garcia would leave the next year for Philly and promptly suffer an injury that would derail him for 3 years. The rest of the cast stayed the same and they got 4 again. One thing you'd notice though is that it didn't matter as much to the White Sox how well the pitching was. Contreras was awful this year and fairly consistently so, but they kept trotting him out there. At 72-90 the White Sox were out of the playoff hunt by the All-Star break. A better team may have tried something else.
In 2008 the aged Contreras was let go and Garland left for LA, but the White Sox filled the holes with Gavin Floyd (trade) and John Danks (within) to get to 4. While Javy would leave after this year, these three would continue to put up 30+ games starts until last year when Danks went down.
1991-1993 Braves
The Braves! The pitching staff held up as the example of awesomeness, who did it almost entirely from within.
In 1991 It started with Steve Avery, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, and Charlie Leibrandt. Only Leibrandt came from outside and when the Braves got him he had put up 5 straight healthy years (though it looks like he'd been a little injured that first year for the Braves). Thus started the run.
In 1992 it was the same 4. In 1993 Liebrandt left and in came Greg Maddux - 5 30+ start seasons in a row before this.
And then... the strike, which made it impossible to get to 30 starts in '94 and pretty much impossible in '95 Could the Braves had made it until Avery was brought down low in 1996?
No. While in 1995 the 4 would start 28, 29, 29 and 29 games showing another year of perfect health, 1994 was not that. Two weeks before the season ended Smoltz underwent surgery to get bone chips out of his elbow. Is it possible that in a full year he tries to pitch through it? I suppose. But is it possible that that leads to a bigger injury issue with Smoltz? Or that if he has his surgery in the beginning of October instead of the end of July that he's maybe not ready by a normal Opening Day '95? (The 1995 season started in late April). I'm thinking one way or another it ends in 1994 or 1995.
Plus Avery did get injured, too. He just pitched through it and got terrible.
So why not the Nats?
The Nats (23, 26, 26, 26, 28) were older than the Braves (21, 24, 25, 34) when they started their streak, but younger than the White Sox (25, 26, 28, 33). Haren is an injury risk but then again the Nats don't need him to keep the streak alive (we're only talking 4 pitchers here) and even with an injury he hit 30 starts last year, which makes 8 years in a row. Why would I be down on the Nats in comparison to these two staffs (at least in the sense of hitting 30 starts)?
Here's why -
White Sox - Contreras lost a little time in 2004 with shoulder issues, no other recent injury issues
Braves - Liebrandt lost a little time in 1990 due to something, no other recent injury issues
Nats - Haren lost a couple games in 2012 with back issues. Tommy John surgery for Jordan Zimmerman in 2010. Major hip surgery for Ross Detwiler in 2010. Tommy John for Stephen Strasburg in 2011.
Both the White Sox of the mid 2000s and the Braves of the early 90s were dealing with staffs that were mostly healthy leading up to the streaks. As we talked about yesterday, past health is a great predictor of future health. While Haren might work out just like Leibrandt and Contreras did, there are still 3 guys on the Nats who have yet to put up back to back full years of health because of major injuries.
This doesn't mean the Nats staff is not better than the White Sox or arguably on par with the Braves. It is that good. It does mean however that what I said to start holds true. The chances of the Nats making it through the next two years with great health (4+ starters starting 30+ games) is next to none.
2005-2008 White Sox
Four consecutive years of 4 guys with 30 or more starts. That's mighty impressive. How'd they do it? They mixed home grown talent with savvy FA signings.
The first crew to do it was Mark Buehrle, Jon Garland, Freddy Garcia, and Jose Contreras. Buehrle and Garland were home grown guys, younger, and already had a history of lots of starts (4 years in a row of 30+ for Mark, 3 for Jon). They brought in Garcia who had a 4 year streak of his own coming from Seattle. Only Contreras was the gamble. He was supposedly a rubber-arm Cuban but spent parts of 2003 dealing with one thing or another. The White Sox gambled on him and won.
The following year this group would be joined by Javy Vasquez who also had a long history of 30+ starts (6 years in a row before coming to the White Sox) and they got the perfect 5 guys all staying healthy all year.
Freddy Garcia would leave the next year for Philly and promptly suffer an injury that would derail him for 3 years. The rest of the cast stayed the same and they got 4 again. One thing you'd notice though is that it didn't matter as much to the White Sox how well the pitching was. Contreras was awful this year and fairly consistently so, but they kept trotting him out there. At 72-90 the White Sox were out of the playoff hunt by the All-Star break. A better team may have tried something else.
In 2008 the aged Contreras was let go and Garland left for LA, but the White Sox filled the holes with Gavin Floyd (trade) and John Danks (within) to get to 4. While Javy would leave after this year, these three would continue to put up 30+ games starts until last year when Danks went down.
1991-1993 Braves
The Braves! The pitching staff held up as the example of awesomeness, who did it almost entirely from within.
In 1991 It started with Steve Avery, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, and Charlie Leibrandt. Only Leibrandt came from outside and when the Braves got him he had put up 5 straight healthy years (though it looks like he'd been a little injured that first year for the Braves). Thus started the run.
In 1992 it was the same 4. In 1993 Liebrandt left and in came Greg Maddux - 5 30+ start seasons in a row before this.
And then... the strike, which made it impossible to get to 30 starts in '94 and pretty much impossible in '95 Could the Braves had made it until Avery was brought down low in 1996?
No. While in 1995 the 4 would start 28, 29, 29 and 29 games showing another year of perfect health, 1994 was not that. Two weeks before the season ended Smoltz underwent surgery to get bone chips out of his elbow. Is it possible that in a full year he tries to pitch through it? I suppose. But is it possible that that leads to a bigger injury issue with Smoltz? Or that if he has his surgery in the beginning of October instead of the end of July that he's maybe not ready by a normal Opening Day '95? (The 1995 season started in late April). I'm thinking one way or another it ends in 1994 or 1995.
Plus Avery did get injured, too. He just pitched through it and got terrible.
So why not the Nats?
The Nats (23, 26, 26, 26, 28) were older than the Braves (21, 24, 25, 34) when they started their streak, but younger than the White Sox (25, 26, 28, 33). Haren is an injury risk but then again the Nats don't need him to keep the streak alive (we're only talking 4 pitchers here) and even with an injury he hit 30 starts last year, which makes 8 years in a row. Why would I be down on the Nats in comparison to these two staffs (at least in the sense of hitting 30 starts)?
Here's why -
White Sox - Contreras lost a little time in 2004 with shoulder issues, no other recent injury issues
Braves - Liebrandt lost a little time in 1990 due to something, no other recent injury issues
Nats - Haren lost a couple games in 2012 with back issues. Tommy John surgery for Jordan Zimmerman in 2010. Major hip surgery for Ross Detwiler in 2010. Tommy John for Stephen Strasburg in 2011.
Both the White Sox of the mid 2000s and the Braves of the early 90s were dealing with staffs that were mostly healthy leading up to the streaks. As we talked about yesterday, past health is a great predictor of future health. While Haren might work out just like Leibrandt and Contreras did, there are still 3 guys on the Nats who have yet to put up back to back full years of health because of major injuries.
This doesn't mean the Nats staff is not better than the White Sox or arguably on par with the Braves. It is that good. It does mean however that what I said to start holds true. The chances of the Nats making it through the next two years with great health (4+ starters starting 30+ games) is next to none.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Dream a little dream of pitcher health
Last year the Nats had amazing starting pitcher health. For example here are the number of missed starts (where a whole rotation turn took place without said pitcher) for the Nats starters last year:
Gio : 0
ZNN : 0
EJax : 0
Strasburg (while in rotation) : 0
Detwiler (while starter) : 0
Hmm that's not a lot is it?
While neither Strasburg or Detwiler got to their 30th start it's likely both would have if given different circumstances. How often does that happen, that 5 starters get to 30 starts a piece? Well since the 5 man rotation became the standard (let's say 1982 for the sake of argument - that's 30 years and that gets us past the strike year of '81) it's only happened 7 times. that's 7 times over like 800+ seasons, or like once every 3 years or so. It's a big recipe for success. None of these teams had a losing record and the last 6 averaged 95 wins.
Having four starters hit the 30 start mark is a lot more common (an additional 72 teams) but overall that's still not often. 79 times over 800+ seasons worth of teams is about 3 teams a year. And how many times has a team managed to do it in back to back seasons? I counted 8 times (and only twice in back to back to back years for what it's worth)
The Nats do have things going for them. The simple way of looking at it is the older you are, the more pitches you throw, and how often you've been injured before matter most in figuring if you are going to be injured this season. (Here's a recent article from BP about it) . The Nats primarily have young pitchers who either haven't really been injured (Gio) or haven't suffered any game skipping injuries since their major surgeries (Detwiler- hip, ZNN Stras - TJ). They haven't overly stressed any of their arms, keeping the # pitches out of the high end. But you have to think other teams probably had the same circumstances. As well as the Nats have set themselves up it isn't very likely the Nats will have this kind of health in 2013, and it's nearly impossible they will have it over the next two years.
Exactly how likely is a major injury? That's hard to say. A lot of stuff goes into injury risk and even then it's not hard and fast. To put down a number for the Nats would be just major speculation.To give you an idea though of how unlikely it is - let's say you think Haren has a 25% chance of having a major injury, and Detwiler, Strasburg, and ZNN have a 10% chance, and Gio 5%. That doesn't seem crazy does it, maybe a little skewed to the Nats even? Well given those numbers it's basically 50/50 the Nats make it through the season with none of these guys having a major injury. A coin flip.
I would say this - it's pretty likely that the Nats will suffer a major starting pitching injury next year. I'd say Haren is the most likely (obviously), followed by ZNN (shoulder issues last year), then probably Detwiler (I worry about the hip more than TJ), then either Gio or Stras depending on whether you care more about pitches (Gio) or the TJ (Strasburg). But we went over this in the Gio "suspension" article, something like that alone isn't going to derail the Nats season. What they need to avoid is the scenario where 2 or more arms go down for major time. That isn't very likely (with the completely made up numbers above - I figure the chances are around 15% and nearly all that is the "2" scenario, 3 or more is less than 2% of the time), but it happens to a few teams every year.
While the Nats have set themselves up pretty well for it NOT to be them the move from Haren (32 with recent injury issues) from Jackson (29 and one of baseball's most dependable arms) does increase the likelihood. It's up to the baseball gods now.
Gio : 0
ZNN : 0
EJax : 0
Strasburg (while in rotation) : 0
Detwiler (while starter) : 0
Hmm that's not a lot is it?
While neither Strasburg or Detwiler got to their 30th start it's likely both would have if given different circumstances. How often does that happen, that 5 starters get to 30 starts a piece? Well since the 5 man rotation became the standard (let's say 1982 for the sake of argument - that's 30 years and that gets us past the strike year of '81) it's only happened 7 times. that's 7 times over like 800+ seasons, or like once every 3 years or so. It's a big recipe for success. None of these teams had a losing record and the last 6 averaged 95 wins.
Having four starters hit the 30 start mark is a lot more common (an additional 72 teams) but overall that's still not often. 79 times over 800+ seasons worth of teams is about 3 teams a year. And how many times has a team managed to do it in back to back seasons? I counted 8 times (and only twice in back to back to back years for what it's worth)
The Nats do have things going for them. The simple way of looking at it is the older you are, the more pitches you throw, and how often you've been injured before matter most in figuring if you are going to be injured this season. (Here's a recent article from BP about it) . The Nats primarily have young pitchers who either haven't really been injured (Gio) or haven't suffered any game skipping injuries since their major surgeries (Detwiler- hip, ZNN Stras - TJ). They haven't overly stressed any of their arms, keeping the # pitches out of the high end. But you have to think other teams probably had the same circumstances. As well as the Nats have set themselves up it isn't very likely the Nats will have this kind of health in 2013, and it's nearly impossible they will have it over the next two years.
Exactly how likely is a major injury? That's hard to say. A lot of stuff goes into injury risk and even then it's not hard and fast. To put down a number for the Nats would be just major speculation.To give you an idea though of how unlikely it is - let's say you think Haren has a 25% chance of having a major injury, and Detwiler, Strasburg, and ZNN have a 10% chance, and Gio 5%. That doesn't seem crazy does it, maybe a little skewed to the Nats even? Well given those numbers it's basically 50/50 the Nats make it through the season with none of these guys having a major injury. A coin flip.
I would say this - it's pretty likely that the Nats will suffer a major starting pitching injury next year. I'd say Haren is the most likely (obviously), followed by ZNN (shoulder issues last year), then probably Detwiler (I worry about the hip more than TJ), then either Gio or Stras depending on whether you care more about pitches (Gio) or the TJ (Strasburg). But we went over this in the Gio "suspension" article, something like that alone isn't going to derail the Nats season. What they need to avoid is the scenario where 2 or more arms go down for major time. That isn't very likely (with the completely made up numbers above - I figure the chances are around 15% and nearly all that is the "2" scenario, 3 or more is less than 2% of the time), but it happens to a few teams every year.
While the Nats have set themselves up pretty well for it NOT to be them the move from Haren (32 with recent injury issues) from Jackson (29 and one of baseball's most dependable arms) does increase the likelihood. It's up to the baseball gods now.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Walking in place
The "big news" of last night for the Nats was the ESPN story that told us... well it told us nothing new in regards to Gio. Two sources said Gio didn't receive banned substances, which matches up with what Gio said and more importantly matches up with the facts we already knew about the case. It's really a lack of news, but when you are following an investigation, even a lack of news is news.
Gio looks good mainly because it's rare in these type of investigations that things don't get worse. They have for A-Rod. They have for Braun. They have for all those other players not originally named.
However, as the same facts seem to exonerate Gio, the same questions remain. Did Gio really know nothing about this clinic as he claims? If so, why does the clinic seem to know him? And if he's lying, why, as it seems so far that he has nothing to hide? And what about this "coach"?
Really though, just like the story around Gio is spinning in place, so are the Nats and their fans. Nothing matters until MLB hands down their sentence (or lack there of).
Gio looks good mainly because it's rare in these type of investigations that things don't get worse. They have for A-Rod. They have for Braun. They have for all those other players not originally named.
However, as the same facts seem to exonerate Gio, the same questions remain. Did Gio really know nothing about this clinic as he claims? If so, why does the clinic seem to know him? And if he's lying, why, as it seems so far that he has nothing to hide? And what about this "coach"?
Really though, just like the story around Gio is spinning in place, so are the Nats and their fans. Nothing matters until MLB hands down their sentence (or lack there of).
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
I wouldn't worry about Espinosa. I might worry about the pen.
Just a quick one today as I battle various ailments.
One of the big concerns in the off-season is how Danny Espinosa will play through his rotator cuff injury. It's scary sounding, mainly because history has show that if a pitcher gets that injury in his throwing arm you might as well call it a career. Danny has three things going for him though. He's not a pitcher, he plays 2nd base. He's youngish (26 in April) which means he should recover better than someone on the wrong side of 30. The injury is in his left shoulder, not his throwing arm. Basically if you had to have someone on your starting team get this injury, that is what you would ask for - an injury to the off-arm of a young position player.
But what about his numbers last year? Clearly that shows that he was being bothered by his injury, right? Not really. While his numbers were down last year a lot of it had to do with an absolutely terrible start.
April : .205 / .300 / .369
Rest of Year : .254 / .317 / .422
As unimpressive as you might see those "rest of the year" numbers as, they're actually enough to maybe squeak him into the Top 10 offensive 2nd basemen in the majors. Add in his defense and he might just be a Top 5 2nd basemen. The competition is weak here.
Month by month you'd call his offense : TERRIBLE!, good, bad, great, good, fair. That doesn't look like someone bothered by his injury. Sure he says he was but so would you if given an easy excuse for what looks like an off year.
So I wouldn't worry about Danny. I wouldn't necessarily expect him to have a Desmond like break-out, but simply a little above average should make him one of the better second basemen in the league.
Now what I worry about in the back of my head is the bullpen. While we all talk about how young the Nats are, their bullpen is of pretty average age. Drew Storen is the only young one at 25. Clip will be 28 this year, Stammen and Mattheus 29, and Soriano 33. I'm not saying that's old. It isn't. Outside of Soriano none of these guys are at the age where you'd expect a drop in production. But at the same time they aren't in a age range where you can reasonably expect improvement.
That in itself would be fine - they've all been good pitchers so they don't need to improve. And I like the fact that the three "middle inning" guys were all former starters (I think that means they can handle more innings - of course this is just a feeling) But each one has an issue you can pick out. Storen had his injury and his breakdown in the playoffs. Clippard, who is among the most used pitchers over the past 3 years, completely washed out at the end of last season. Mattheus pitched his most innings as a reliever and battled through a foot issue early in the year. Stammen threw 88 innings, which is was the 2nd most for a pure reliever last year. Soriano missed a good part of 2011 with injury.
If I'm looking for a place where a lot can go wrong fast it's here. A couple arms go down, one guy just doesn't pitch well this year, suddenly that strength becomes... well, it probably wouldn't be a weakness. The addition of Soriano means we're looking at five decent arms here and even just two decent arms can be ridden to an average season. But it wouldn't be a strength and given how the Nats pen held up last year, no one would be looking forward to a post-season where you didn't feel good about the pen.
One of the big concerns in the off-season is how Danny Espinosa will play through his rotator cuff injury. It's scary sounding, mainly because history has show that if a pitcher gets that injury in his throwing arm you might as well call it a career. Danny has three things going for him though. He's not a pitcher, he plays 2nd base. He's youngish (26 in April) which means he should recover better than someone on the wrong side of 30. The injury is in his left shoulder, not his throwing arm. Basically if you had to have someone on your starting team get this injury, that is what you would ask for - an injury to the off-arm of a young position player.
But what about his numbers last year? Clearly that shows that he was being bothered by his injury, right? Not really. While his numbers were down last year a lot of it had to do with an absolutely terrible start.
April : .205 / .300 / .369
Rest of Year : .254 / .317 / .422
As unimpressive as you might see those "rest of the year" numbers as, they're actually enough to maybe squeak him into the Top 10 offensive 2nd basemen in the majors. Add in his defense and he might just be a Top 5 2nd basemen. The competition is weak here.
Month by month you'd call his offense : TERRIBLE!, good, bad, great, good, fair. That doesn't look like someone bothered by his injury. Sure he says he was but so would you if given an easy excuse for what looks like an off year.
So I wouldn't worry about Danny. I wouldn't necessarily expect him to have a Desmond like break-out, but simply a little above average should make him one of the better second basemen in the league.
Now what I worry about in the back of my head is the bullpen. While we all talk about how young the Nats are, their bullpen is of pretty average age. Drew Storen is the only young one at 25. Clip will be 28 this year, Stammen and Mattheus 29, and Soriano 33. I'm not saying that's old. It isn't. Outside of Soriano none of these guys are at the age where you'd expect a drop in production. But at the same time they aren't in a age range where you can reasonably expect improvement.
That in itself would be fine - they've all been good pitchers so they don't need to improve. And I like the fact that the three "middle inning" guys were all former starters (I think that means they can handle more innings - of course this is just a feeling) But each one has an issue you can pick out. Storen had his injury and his breakdown in the playoffs. Clippard, who is among the most used pitchers over the past 3 years, completely washed out at the end of last season. Mattheus pitched his most innings as a reliever and battled through a foot issue early in the year. Stammen threw 88 innings, which is was the 2nd most for a pure reliever last year. Soriano missed a good part of 2011 with injury.
If I'm looking for a place where a lot can go wrong fast it's here. A couple arms go down, one guy just doesn't pitch well this year, suddenly that strength becomes... well, it probably wouldn't be a weakness. The addition of Soriano means we're looking at five decent arms here and even just two decent arms can be ridden to an average season. But it wouldn't be a strength and given how the Nats pen held up last year, no one would be looking forward to a post-season where you didn't feel good about the pen.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Strasburg - last year revisited
Remember how last year we all thought Strasburg was just kind of off? I don't think we give him the credit he deserves because last year was pretty awesome.
You know how many times a player in his first 3 seasons has put up 150+ innings where they struck out at least 10 per 9 innings and had a K/BB ratio of over 3? 7. Seven times ever in the history of baseball.
Ok yes that is arbitrary number picking and the high strikeout totals certainly favor pitchers in the last 20 years* but still that's impressive, right? And it's not just a "first few seasons thing" His K/BB of 4.10 would have been 5th in the NL if he pitched enough innings to qualify. He would have led the league in K/9. He would have been around 25th in the league in BB/9.
You might be thinking "Ok that's good, probably very good, but we didn't expect this guy to be very good we expected him to be great" First I'd say "That was great, you idiot". Then I'd note that he didn't get lucky or pitch well (for him) in 2012. Last year was the wildest he's pitched in his admittedly brief career (but also wilder than his last college year). He had a .311 BABIP against him and an 11.5% HR/FB rate, which are both on the higher side of the expected ranges. Things were probably working against him a little bit. And remember, this is all from a guy who was pitching his first full(-ish) season coming back from Tommy John.
Strasburg is special. At age 23 in his first full season in the bigs, he came back from surgery, arguably had a little bit of bad luck, arguably didn't pitch to his capabilities, and still put up a season where if he pitched a full load of innings he would have been a Top 5 most valuable pitcher in the majors. It seems very likely that next year he'll improve in some way, healthier, more experience, better luck, and even a slight improvement in one of these would mean the Nationals would get one of the Top 3 pitcher seasons in the league. If it all comes together, we'd be getting into the historic.
Other things may not work out for the Nats. Maybe Danny is hurt. Maybe Gio gets suspended or the whole thing effects him. Maybe LaRoche does come back to Earth. But Strasburg and Bryce will work out and if things go as well as they could, hell, alone they could carry the Nats to the playoffs.
*4 of the non-Strasburgs were since 1995 : Nomo, Lincecum x2, Prior. The other two were Gooden's 1984 season and Dick Radatz '67 year (when he was 27)
You know how many times a player in his first 3 seasons has put up 150+ innings where they struck out at least 10 per 9 innings and had a K/BB ratio of over 3? 7. Seven times ever in the history of baseball.
Ok yes that is arbitrary number picking and the high strikeout totals certainly favor pitchers in the last 20 years* but still that's impressive, right? And it's not just a "first few seasons thing" His K/BB of 4.10 would have been 5th in the NL if he pitched enough innings to qualify. He would have led the league in K/9. He would have been around 25th in the league in BB/9.
You might be thinking "Ok that's good, probably very good, but we didn't expect this guy to be very good we expected him to be great" First I'd say "That was great, you idiot". Then I'd note that he didn't get lucky or pitch well (for him) in 2012. Last year was the wildest he's pitched in his admittedly brief career (but also wilder than his last college year). He had a .311 BABIP against him and an 11.5% HR/FB rate, which are both on the higher side of the expected ranges. Things were probably working against him a little bit. And remember, this is all from a guy who was pitching his first full(-ish) season coming back from Tommy John.
Strasburg is special. At age 23 in his first full season in the bigs, he came back from surgery, arguably had a little bit of bad luck, arguably didn't pitch to his capabilities, and still put up a season where if he pitched a full load of innings he would have been a Top 5 most valuable pitcher in the majors. It seems very likely that next year he'll improve in some way, healthier, more experience, better luck, and even a slight improvement in one of these would mean the Nationals would get one of the Top 3 pitcher seasons in the league. If it all comes together, we'd be getting into the historic.
Other things may not work out for the Nats. Maybe Danny is hurt. Maybe Gio gets suspended or the whole thing effects him. Maybe LaRoche does come back to Earth. But Strasburg and Bryce will work out and if things go as well as they could, hell, alone they could carry the Nats to the playoffs.
*4 of the non-Strasburgs were since 1995 : Nomo, Lincecum x2, Prior. The other two were Gooden's 1984 season and Dick Radatz '67 year (when he was 27)
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Gio cloud
Yesterday Gio answered questions from the media, and if you read different accounts you get a different story. Some local accounts and a national one had a confident and happy Gio, answering questions straight fowardly and oh by the way did we mention he got invited to play for the USA in the WBC!? Other national reports took a more matter of fact approach ignoring impressions and relegating the WBC point to a mere sentence. The local guys seemed inclined to let this sit on the back-burner, at least until the MLB investigation gives us a definitive response by baseball. The national guys have no such inclination. Jayson Stark even went ahead and posted an opinion piece that questioned Gio. The nerve!
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Stark but I'm very glad he wrote that up. The national reports - AP and ESPN's non-opinion piece are reporting the straight news. While it comes across as dry, it also is the most fair. Gio's attitude is not relevant. His call to the WBC is at best circumstantial evidence in his favor. Instead what we need to know is what happened, what Gio says about it and that MLB is looking into it. On the other side, the local guys come across as a bit soft toward Gio. They know Gio. He doesn't seem like a user. I assume there hadn't been hints or insinuations floating around. The hard evidence is not strongly aligned against him. As long as they keep on putting relevant information out there, what's the harm in not grilling the guy? Is the story a little unbelievable? Perhaps. But it's certainly not impossible so why not give Gio the benefit of the doubt?
Thing is, while Gio the individual may deserve the benefit of the doubt, Gio the ballplayer lost that benefit a long time ago. It wasn't his fault, but that's the truth. As a ballplayer there is zero tolerance now. You even associate with one dirty person and you are going to be questioned over and over about it until most people are satisfied. Above and beyond that, you are going to have to accept the fact that a few people are NEVER going to be satisfied. That's the life of a modern ballplayer. Stark comes from this other side, after seeing ballplayer after ballplayer flat out lie to our faces, he wants Gio to accept the fact he's going to be basically interrogated by the press. He wants us to see how silly Gio's story seems if you take it on face value so that if Gio is found to be guilty we don't sit around and talk about how shocked we are. It's may be a little harsh but that's reality now.
It's not that I expect the beat guys to be doing this. I would imagine in any town we'd see the same type of... let's not say kid's gloves, maybe "older teen's gloves", treatment for a nice guy who has given no indication of guilt where the current known evidence does not clearly convict him. But this type of colmun should have already been out there* already.
Gio's name was in a book of a known dealer of banned substances, where nearly every other player name in the book is someone who is strongly connected to banned substances. His father's name is in there. The name of the guy he identified as his off-season strength coach is in there. There's far more circumstantially linking him to banned substances, than putting him on the side of angels.
*If we really want someone to put Gio and the team to task about this, it's Boz who should be doing it. It's a columnist thing. But God knows the Unofficial Mascot of the Washington Nationals is not going to be doing that anytime soon.
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Stark but I'm very glad he wrote that up. The national reports - AP and ESPN's non-opinion piece are reporting the straight news. While it comes across as dry, it also is the most fair. Gio's attitude is not relevant. His call to the WBC is at best circumstantial evidence in his favor. Instead what we need to know is what happened, what Gio says about it and that MLB is looking into it. On the other side, the local guys come across as a bit soft toward Gio. They know Gio. He doesn't seem like a user. I assume there hadn't been hints or insinuations floating around. The hard evidence is not strongly aligned against him. As long as they keep on putting relevant information out there, what's the harm in not grilling the guy? Is the story a little unbelievable? Perhaps. But it's certainly not impossible so why not give Gio the benefit of the doubt?
Thing is, while Gio the individual may deserve the benefit of the doubt, Gio the ballplayer lost that benefit a long time ago. It wasn't his fault, but that's the truth. As a ballplayer there is zero tolerance now. You even associate with one dirty person and you are going to be questioned over and over about it until most people are satisfied. Above and beyond that, you are going to have to accept the fact that a few people are NEVER going to be satisfied. That's the life of a modern ballplayer. Stark comes from this other side, after seeing ballplayer after ballplayer flat out lie to our faces, he wants Gio to accept the fact he's going to be basically interrogated by the press. He wants us to see how silly Gio's story seems if you take it on face value so that if Gio is found to be guilty we don't sit around and talk about how shocked we are. It's may be a little harsh but that's reality now.
It's not that I expect the beat guys to be doing this. I would imagine in any town we'd see the same type of... let's not say kid's gloves, maybe "older teen's gloves", treatment for a nice guy who has given no indication of guilt where the current known evidence does not clearly convict him. But this type of colmun should have already been out there* already.
Gio's name was in a book of a known dealer of banned substances, where nearly every other player name in the book is someone who is strongly connected to banned substances. His father's name is in there. The name of the guy he identified as his off-season strength coach is in there. There's far more circumstantially linking him to banned substances, than putting him on the side of angels.
*If we really want someone to put Gio and the team to task about this, it's Boz who should be doing it. It's a columnist thing. But God knows the Unofficial Mascot of the Washington Nationals is not going to be doing that anytime soon.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Pitchers AND catchers?
Sometimes we're grown-ups and sometimes we're kids. Pitchers and Catchers is totally a little kid thing to get excited about. It's like when they turn the calendar over to December, see the 25th sitting there, and start screaming "It's almost Christmas!" while running around the house. That's cute, right?
Of course pitchers and catchers turns into Spring Training which is the equivalent to the same kid, 90 minutes later, still running around and screaming. Worse, when you tell them to calm down they scream "IIII caaaaan't stoppppp myselffffff!!!!" while bouncing from couch to couch. Yes you can, dammit.
Nats fans are waiting on two things right now. Is Gio going to be punished in some way for his association with that Florida clinic? Does Danny Espinosa look healthy? That's about it. Everything else is either better left to when the season begins, or mostly inconsequential.
Of course, it's up to you how much of this you want to absorb. Maybe you love it, and to each his own. I'll just be writing the same random stuff until the off-season becomes the in-season.
Of course pitchers and catchers turns into Spring Training which is the equivalent to the same kid, 90 minutes later, still running around and screaming. Worse, when you tell them to calm down they scream "IIII caaaaan't stoppppp myselffffff!!!!" while bouncing from couch to couch. Yes you can, dammit.
Nats fans are waiting on two things right now. Is Gio going to be punished in some way for his association with that Florida clinic? Does Danny Espinosa look healthy? That's about it. Everything else is either better left to when the season begins, or mostly inconsequential.
Of course, it's up to you how much of this you want to absorb. Maybe you love it, and to each his own. I'll just be writing the same random stuff until the off-season becomes the in-season.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Micah Owings
Rizzo is on the way to his final goal. No, not winning a World Series, turning the Nats bench into the 2008 Arizona Diamondbacks! Recently he signed a couple more D-back guys to get closer to this goal. Chris Snyder is organizational depth. The guy has NEVER played more than 115 games in a season. (ok he played 122 games in the minors in 2003. You got me!) If you can discount last years horrific performance, he's not a terrible bat. At only 32 he might have something left. Really nothing to see here, just a guy that if the Nats are down to their 4th string catcher because of injury and such, you can accept starting him for a week.
But people are fascinated by Micah Owings. Micah was a pitcher/hitter who was great at both in college. not good - great. Led the team in homers, SLG, and RBIwhile batting .354. Had a 9.6 K/9 and a 6.24 K/BB ration. You could argue that he was the best hitter AND best pitcher in Conference USA that year (you'd lose the argument - but it's impressive it could be argued). He ended up in Arizona where they focused on making him a pitcher. While doing that he was still raking the ball as a hitter, putting up a .319 / .355 / .552 line, mostly from the pitcher spot.
What happened then?
Well he wasn't a good major league pitcher. To get guys out he had to dial things up and when he did that he lost his control. Plus he was prone to the gopher ball. He has some success converting to relief but in very limited trials.
Who cares about that though. The Nats signed him as a hitter! Yeah well he hasn't been much of that either the past few years. .236 / .250 / .438 since 2009 and that pop is all before 2011. The hope is the problem with his batting the last couple of years is simply a combination of small sample size and the lack of repetition. (so small (15, 33, and 11 PAs in the past 3 years) I don't feel there is any point in looking at the fancy stats) Give him enough regular at bats as a hitter and he'll shine again. Is that a false hope though?
Probably. Yes, he did hit well in the past, but that was in very limited at bats 4 years ago. Yes, Rick Ankiel made a successful switch but he did it at age 25. Micah is trying it at an old 30. At that age you are at the beginning of your decline years. You get slower, and your body fights you. Micah has suffered through a bunch of injuries the past couple years, including season ending elbow surgery last year. For the sake of argument I took a look at guys who were 26/27 in 2009 and hit with an above average OPS+. Out of roughly 20, only 4 had a better year last year than in 2009. (If you must know Wright, Cabrera, Cano, and for some reason Aaron Hill). Yeah I know that's kind of a skewed look at things but we're looking at Owings in a skewed way. "He was good in 2009 so he must be able to be good today!". It's tough to bet on some one switching positions while coming back from a major injury at this age. Even guys not doing that can't keep up production.
But what about both? He may not be able to have value as a pitcher or a hitter alone but what about as a hybird pitcher/hitter, with the pitcher part being limited to long relief or non-important innings? Well as this (way too optimistic) fangraphs post notes, if you are going to assume his hitting will improve with more focus, you have to assume his pitching will get worse. If his pitching gets worse, you're not even looking at a mop-up guy. You are looking at a guy that could pitch only in the biggest of blow-outs or in games entering the 15th inning. No, this won't be it.
I'm not knocking the signing. There's no such thing as a bad minor league deal. You sign someone, roll the dice, and usually come up empty. Micah Owings is at best an interesting distraction, not the bench star of the future.
But people are fascinated by Micah Owings. Micah was a pitcher/hitter who was great at both in college. not good - great. Led the team in homers, SLG, and RBIwhile batting .354. Had a 9.6 K/9 and a 6.24 K/BB ration. You could argue that he was the best hitter AND best pitcher in Conference USA that year (you'd lose the argument - but it's impressive it could be argued). He ended up in Arizona where they focused on making him a pitcher. While doing that he was still raking the ball as a hitter, putting up a .319 / .355 / .552 line, mostly from the pitcher spot.
What happened then?
Well he wasn't a good major league pitcher. To get guys out he had to dial things up and when he did that he lost his control. Plus he was prone to the gopher ball. He has some success converting to relief but in very limited trials.
Who cares about that though. The Nats signed him as a hitter! Yeah well he hasn't been much of that either the past few years. .236 / .250 / .438 since 2009 and that pop is all before 2011. The hope is the problem with his batting the last couple of years is simply a combination of small sample size and the lack of repetition. (so small (15, 33, and 11 PAs in the past 3 years) I don't feel there is any point in looking at the fancy stats) Give him enough regular at bats as a hitter and he'll shine again. Is that a false hope though?
Probably. Yes, he did hit well in the past, but that was in very limited at bats 4 years ago. Yes, Rick Ankiel made a successful switch but he did it at age 25. Micah is trying it at an old 30. At that age you are at the beginning of your decline years. You get slower, and your body fights you. Micah has suffered through a bunch of injuries the past couple years, including season ending elbow surgery last year. For the sake of argument I took a look at guys who were 26/27 in 2009 and hit with an above average OPS+. Out of roughly 20, only 4 had a better year last year than in 2009. (If you must know Wright, Cabrera, Cano, and for some reason Aaron Hill). Yeah I know that's kind of a skewed look at things but we're looking at Owings in a skewed way. "He was good in 2009 so he must be able to be good today!". It's tough to bet on some one switching positions while coming back from a major injury at this age. Even guys not doing that can't keep up production.
But what about both? He may not be able to have value as a pitcher or a hitter alone but what about as a hybird pitcher/hitter, with the pitcher part being limited to long relief or non-important innings? Well as this (way too optimistic) fangraphs post notes, if you are going to assume his hitting will improve with more focus, you have to assume his pitching will get worse. If his pitching gets worse, you're not even looking at a mop-up guy. You are looking at a guy that could pitch only in the biggest of blow-outs or in games entering the 15th inning. No, this won't be it.
I'm not knocking the signing. There's no such thing as a bad minor league deal. You sign someone, roll the dice, and usually come up empty. Micah Owings is at best an interesting distraction, not the bench star of the future.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Bryce Harper will break out
If he doesn't he'll be spitting in the face of history.
We looked a couple times last year at Bryce's place in history. Did he have the best offensive season ever from a teenager? Did he have the most WAR from a teenage position player? These comparisons leave us with the obvious follow-up question : How did all these players we are comparing him to do in their sophmore seasons? We often hear about "sophomore slumps" but does that apply to the true phenom?
I'm going to look at guys that Bryce matches up with offensively (OPS+) and how they did offensively the next year. Why? Well, defensive stats bounce around too much from year to year. I'd hate to put up WAR, show all these guys improving but have it be because they lucked into awesome fielding years. Bryce is a very good fielder and is super fast. Those are constants. He'll have value. The question is more how much that value will increase (or decrease).
Player : OPS+ at age 19, OPS+ at age 20
Mel Ott: 139, 165
Tony Conigliaro : 137, 133
Ty Cobb : 132, 167
Sherry Magee : 122, 134
Bryce Harper : 119, ???
Mickey Mantle : 117, 162
Cesar Cedeno: 114, 97
Ken Griffey Jr : 108, 136
Edgar Renteria : 103, 80
Three players, Ott, Cobb, and Mantle, broke out to full superstardom. Two more, Magee and Griffey, improved a fair amount and would break out themselves, just not at age 20 (Griffey at 21, Magee at 22). I think this is the group we expect Bryce to be in. But what of the other three?
Cesar Cedeno is an odd case. His age 20 season would be his worst one until he was a hobbled 32-yr old trying to stay healthy enough to hang onto a job. He would then break out at 21 and would follow that with another superstar season at 22. He then would be involved in a situation where his girlfriend was shot dead in a motel room. He still played well after that but never to the same level. It may have been injuries, which is a concern because he played in an all-out fashion much like Bryce does. Then again, dead girlfriend. It's a cautionary tale in more than one way but probably not comparable to Bryce.
Edgar Renteria would show that that rookie year was kind of a fluke. (The BABIP was kind of high - though as a rookie you really don't know his level until he sets it). He'd have several mediocre seasons after that and while he'd occasionally have another good year for the most part he was a below average hitter. Edgar, though, was a completely different hitter than Bryce, dependent on high averages to make up for his lack of power. It's not a good comparison.
Tony Conigliaro is probably the most "worrisome" of comparisons. While he was still a good hitter he never really got past the level he had as a 19yr old. Now, there's a HUGE caveat here. He was having a slightly better year at 22 when he got beaned in the face. After that he was never the same player. Could he have been about to have his superstar year? Or was he just a "late" bloomer who would bust out at 24 or 25? We'll never know. Either way it's not like his 20-22 seasons were bad. They were in fact very good. Just not superstar level.
So what do the comparables say about Bryce? Simple, he will break out. Yes, yes small sample size but Bryce is such an elite talent he's going to be in small comparison groups his whole career. It could be this year, maybe 2014, but at worst by the end of 2105 he should have that great season. Five out of eight comparables had that big year by the time they were 21, with one more having it at age 22, and one possibly on the way to it at that age before a tragic injury derailed his career. Only Edgar Renteria, the last player on this list and not very comparable to Bryce, failed to make himself into a star. I have a hard time worrying about that.
We looked a couple times last year at Bryce's place in history. Did he have the best offensive season ever from a teenager? Did he have the most WAR from a teenage position player? These comparisons leave us with the obvious follow-up question : How did all these players we are comparing him to do in their sophmore seasons? We often hear about "sophomore slumps" but does that apply to the true phenom?
I'm going to look at guys that Bryce matches up with offensively (OPS+) and how they did offensively the next year. Why? Well, defensive stats bounce around too much from year to year. I'd hate to put up WAR, show all these guys improving but have it be because they lucked into awesome fielding years. Bryce is a very good fielder and is super fast. Those are constants. He'll have value. The question is more how much that value will increase (or decrease).
Player : OPS+ at age 19, OPS+ at age 20
Mel Ott: 139, 165
Tony Conigliaro : 137, 133
Ty Cobb : 132, 167
Sherry Magee : 122, 134
Bryce Harper : 119, ???
Mickey Mantle : 117, 162
Cesar Cedeno: 114, 97
Ken Griffey Jr : 108, 136
Edgar Renteria : 103, 80
Three players, Ott, Cobb, and Mantle, broke out to full superstardom. Two more, Magee and Griffey, improved a fair amount and would break out themselves, just not at age 20 (Griffey at 21, Magee at 22). I think this is the group we expect Bryce to be in. But what of the other three?
Cesar Cedeno is an odd case. His age 20 season would be his worst one until he was a hobbled 32-yr old trying to stay healthy enough to hang onto a job. He would then break out at 21 and would follow that with another superstar season at 22. He then would be involved in a situation where his girlfriend was shot dead in a motel room. He still played well after that but never to the same level. It may have been injuries, which is a concern because he played in an all-out fashion much like Bryce does. Then again, dead girlfriend. It's a cautionary tale in more than one way but probably not comparable to Bryce.
Edgar Renteria would show that that rookie year was kind of a fluke. (The BABIP was kind of high - though as a rookie you really don't know his level until he sets it). He'd have several mediocre seasons after that and while he'd occasionally have another good year for the most part he was a below average hitter. Edgar, though, was a completely different hitter than Bryce, dependent on high averages to make up for his lack of power. It's not a good comparison.
Tony Conigliaro is probably the most "worrisome" of comparisons. While he was still a good hitter he never really got past the level he had as a 19yr old. Now, there's a HUGE caveat here. He was having a slightly better year at 22 when he got beaned in the face. After that he was never the same player. Could he have been about to have his superstar year? Or was he just a "late" bloomer who would bust out at 24 or 25? We'll never know. Either way it's not like his 20-22 seasons were bad. They were in fact very good. Just not superstar level.
So what do the comparables say about Bryce? Simple, he will break out. Yes, yes small sample size but Bryce is such an elite talent he's going to be in small comparison groups his whole career. It could be this year, maybe 2014, but at worst by the end of 2105 he should have that great season. Five out of eight comparables had that big year by the time they were 21, with one more having it at age 22, and one possibly on the way to it at that age before a tragic injury derailed his career. Only Edgar Renteria, the last player on this list and not very comparable to Bryce, failed to make himself into a star. I have a hard time worrying about that.
Monday, February 04, 2013
Bored Monday post
I don't remember the term "elite quarterback" used alot growing up, so I wanted to track down when exactly it started. Of course that is kind of hard to do, but Harper of 12 hours ago didn't know that.
Here's a college reference in 2001. Notice the word doesn't even make it into the column. It's only in the title. In 2003, in the NFL, the same thing. Here's another from 2004. Can you imagine in 2013 a column about Brady getting to be seen as one of the best QBs in the NFL and the word "elite" not being used? The copy editor would send it back for that glaring omission.
Near as I can tell it probably came up thorugh the college ranks thanks in no small part to Nike's Elite 11 camp. But wherever it came from, it's certainly got a grasp on our group mindthink.
That first spike in "elite QB"* searches corresponds to that NYT article about the Elite 11. That's probably not a coincidence. The next year you get 2 months of big searches around the same time - then 3, then 4, and then it's all over. It's done. Elite QB gives the sports pundits something to blabber about so it is here to stay.
*this search got me better results than "elite quarterback" or "elite NFL QB" etc etc.
Baseball tomorrow
Here's a college reference in 2001. Notice the word doesn't even make it into the column. It's only in the title. In 2003, in the NFL, the same thing. Here's another from 2004. Can you imagine in 2013 a column about Brady getting to be seen as one of the best QBs in the NFL and the word "elite" not being used? The copy editor would send it back for that glaring omission.
Near as I can tell it probably came up thorugh the college ranks thanks in no small part to Nike's Elite 11 camp. But wherever it came from, it's certainly got a grasp on our group mindthink.
That first spike in "elite QB"* searches corresponds to that NYT article about the Elite 11. That's probably not a coincidence. The next year you get 2 months of big searches around the same time - then 3, then 4, and then it's all over. It's done. Elite QB gives the sports pundits something to blabber about so it is here to stay.
*this search got me better results than "elite quarterback" or "elite NFL QB" etc etc.
Baseball tomorrow
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Braves or Nats : Whose OF is better?
The Braves. OK see you tomorrow!
...
...
...
OK, ok. I guess I should explain. The Braves and Nats both had very good OFs last year and yet both overhauled them over the offseason. The Nats shunted the poor fielding Michael Morse off, shifted Bryce Harper, who held his own in center field, to left, and brought in Denard Span. The Braves let Michael Bourn walk and brought in BJ Upton to replace him. They then traded the underrated Martin Prado for Justin Upton. The question then arose who had the better OF?
Hitting
Here are the OPS+ for each player over the past 3 years and ages for 2013
Justin Upton (25) : 110 141 107
BJ Upton (28) : 106 114 104
Jason Heyward (23) : 131 93 117
Bryce Harper (20) : 119
Denard Span (29) : 88 90 105
Jayson Werth (33) : 144 97 125
Let's pull out the two consistent guys. Denard Span is an average hitter. BJ Upton is slightly better than average. So the Braves start with an slight edge. After this we're faced with a bunch of questions. Anyone of the remaining players could have a superstar like year in 2013 and it wouldn't be a shock. So why do I like the Braves better here? Two completely opposite things that work against the Nats.
Bryce Harper, while blessed with all the talent in the world, is the only one here who hasn't yet had that big year in the majors. Do we all think he could do it? Yes. But does it have to be in 2013? No, it doesn't. On the other hand Werth is older for a baseball player. He's in the decline years of your average player. It doesn't mean that he has to decline, but it does mean at this point his body is really working against him. So while it's wide open on what could happen, I have to give the edge to the Braves here just because it's slightly more likely that it works out for them than the Nats.
Speed
Here is each players Spd number (which takes into account stuff like 1st to 3rd) from last year :
Justin Upton (25) : 6.0
BJ Upton (28) : 6.2
Jason Heyward (23) : 6.2
Bryce Harper (20) : 7.4
Denard Span (29) : 5.6
Jayson Werth (33) : 5.3
The short of it is, while Bryce Harper's gambling ways and young legs makes him the biggest threat the whole rest of the Braves OF is arguably better than the Nats OF. If we look at more years - Span looks more favorable, he's the equal of any of the Braves guys, but he's also older. Werth had a good year last year, but in general would look LESS favorable looking at multiple years. It's not that he's slow or a bad baserunner or anything like that, just in comparison to the rest of these very talented guys he's clearly #6.
I kind of feel again, ever so slight an edge for the Braves.
Fielding
3 years of fangraphs FLD stat (another combo stat taking into account arm and range, etc.) coming up :
Justin Upton (25) : 5.5 7.7 -2.1
BJ Upton (28) : 1.4 1.4 -2.4
Jason Heyward (23) : 4.2 8.6 21.5
Bryce Harper (20) : 9.9
Denard Span (29) : 4.4 9.0 8.5
Jayson Werth (33) : -7.5 1.4 -12.6
Unlike with the hitting, where you are looking at three years for trends and historical notes, here you kind of have to look at 3 just to get a clear picture of a fielder. Anyone can have a great single year because fo the vagaries of what goes into these stats (Adam Dunn was supposedly great at first base for the Nats one year). Three tends to give a clearer picture of actual skills. Here I tend to push the two teams for right now. Bryce will be great where ever the Nats put him and Span is a very good CF and that's the most important position. He's no Bourn, but the Braves don't have Bourn anymore they have BJ Upton who is merely doing the bare minimum in CF. Justin Upton is good in LF, Heyward is great in RF, but CF matters most.
Unfortunately for the Nats Jayson Werth hasn't played a good RF in years. Around 2007/2008 he was great but since then we've seen a slow decline. No matter what stat you look at UZR, Range Factor, the stats show he's not getting to the balls that he should anymore. That's an issue. Span will help with that more than Bryce probably did simply by having experience covering for others but fielding isn't something that you just get back. For one year he might be ok, but it's more likely he won't.
Now if the Nats do what I think they should and move Werth to LF, shade Span in that direction and let Bryce's cannon sit in RF cutting down those 1st to 3rd guys I might move it over to giving the Nats a slight edge, but let's see them do it first.
Conclusion
If you push in one category and have the slight edge in two others, well you win. So the Braves win. But don't take that to be a slam dunk or anything. It's just slightly more likely that the combination of the Braves 3 OF will put up a slightly more worthwhile year than the combination of the Nats 3. And even then the most likely scneario puts them at what? A half-game better? It's nothing influential, just bragging rights. The Nats, with that killer rotation from top to bottom and no holes (well...maybe catcher), are still the better team and the favorites to win the East.
Also A LOT will come down to Bryce and Justin. While Werth had some big years, his usual ones were just a step below superstar. Can he even get back to that for a whole season should be the thought, not if he can have a team carrying year. Heyward looked to have that big potential at the start, and is young enough to still pull it off, but it seems most likely that he'll be limited by striking out to a place just below the best hitters. Bryce and Justin though, feel like far more real threats to put up that .290 30+ homer year. If one of them does it while the other one doesn't that pretty much makes the team with the guy that did it the winner.
...
...
...
OK, ok. I guess I should explain. The Braves and Nats both had very good OFs last year and yet both overhauled them over the offseason. The Nats shunted the poor fielding Michael Morse off, shifted Bryce Harper, who held his own in center field, to left, and brought in Denard Span. The Braves let Michael Bourn walk and brought in BJ Upton to replace him. They then traded the underrated Martin Prado for Justin Upton. The question then arose who had the better OF?
Hitting
Here are the OPS+ for each player over the past 3 years and ages for 2013
Justin Upton (25) : 110 141 107
BJ Upton (28) : 106 114 104
Jason Heyward (23) : 131 93 117
Bryce Harper (20) : 119
Denard Span (29) : 88 90 105
Jayson Werth (33) : 144 97 125
Let's pull out the two consistent guys. Denard Span is an average hitter. BJ Upton is slightly better than average. So the Braves start with an slight edge. After this we're faced with a bunch of questions. Anyone of the remaining players could have a superstar like year in 2013 and it wouldn't be a shock. So why do I like the Braves better here? Two completely opposite things that work against the Nats.
Bryce Harper, while blessed with all the talent in the world, is the only one here who hasn't yet had that big year in the majors. Do we all think he could do it? Yes. But does it have to be in 2013? No, it doesn't. On the other hand Werth is older for a baseball player. He's in the decline years of your average player. It doesn't mean that he has to decline, but it does mean at this point his body is really working against him. So while it's wide open on what could happen, I have to give the edge to the Braves here just because it's slightly more likely that it works out for them than the Nats.
Speed
Here is each players Spd number (which takes into account stuff like 1st to 3rd) from last year :
Justin Upton (25) : 6.0
BJ Upton (28) : 6.2
Jason Heyward (23) : 6.2
Bryce Harper (20) : 7.4
Denard Span (29) : 5.6
Jayson Werth (33) : 5.3
The short of it is, while Bryce Harper's gambling ways and young legs makes him the biggest threat the whole rest of the Braves OF is arguably better than the Nats OF. If we look at more years - Span looks more favorable, he's the equal of any of the Braves guys, but he's also older. Werth had a good year last year, but in general would look LESS favorable looking at multiple years. It's not that he's slow or a bad baserunner or anything like that, just in comparison to the rest of these very talented guys he's clearly #6.
I kind of feel again, ever so slight an edge for the Braves.
Fielding
3 years of fangraphs FLD stat (another combo stat taking into account arm and range, etc.) coming up :
Justin Upton (25) : 5.5 7.7 -2.1
BJ Upton (28) : 1.4 1.4 -2.4
Jason Heyward (23) : 4.2 8.6 21.5
Bryce Harper (20) : 9.9
Denard Span (29) : 4.4 9.0 8.5
Jayson Werth (33) : -7.5 1.4 -12.6
Unlike with the hitting, where you are looking at three years for trends and historical notes, here you kind of have to look at 3 just to get a clear picture of a fielder. Anyone can have a great single year because fo the vagaries of what goes into these stats (Adam Dunn was supposedly great at first base for the Nats one year). Three tends to give a clearer picture of actual skills. Here I tend to push the two teams for right now. Bryce will be great where ever the Nats put him and Span is a very good CF and that's the most important position. He's no Bourn, but the Braves don't have Bourn anymore they have BJ Upton who is merely doing the bare minimum in CF. Justin Upton is good in LF, Heyward is great in RF, but CF matters most.
Unfortunately for the Nats Jayson Werth hasn't played a good RF in years. Around 2007/2008 he was great but since then we've seen a slow decline. No matter what stat you look at UZR, Range Factor, the stats show he's not getting to the balls that he should anymore. That's an issue. Span will help with that more than Bryce probably did simply by having experience covering for others but fielding isn't something that you just get back. For one year he might be ok, but it's more likely he won't.
Now if the Nats do what I think they should and move Werth to LF, shade Span in that direction and let Bryce's cannon sit in RF cutting down those 1st to 3rd guys I might move it over to giving the Nats a slight edge, but let's see them do it first.
Conclusion
If you push in one category and have the slight edge in two others, well you win. So the Braves win. But don't take that to be a slam dunk or anything. It's just slightly more likely that the combination of the Braves 3 OF will put up a slightly more worthwhile year than the combination of the Nats 3. And even then the most likely scneario puts them at what? A half-game better? It's nothing influential, just bragging rights. The Nats, with that killer rotation from top to bottom and no holes (well...maybe catcher), are still the better team and the favorites to win the East.
Also A LOT will come down to Bryce and Justin. While Werth had some big years, his usual ones were just a step below superstar. Can he even get back to that for a whole season should be the thought, not if he can have a team carrying year. Heyward looked to have that big potential at the start, and is young enough to still pull it off, but it seems most likely that he'll be limited by striking out to a place just below the best hitters. Bryce and Justin though, feel like far more real threats to put up that .290 30+ homer year. If one of them does it while the other one doesn't that pretty much makes the team with the guy that did it the winner.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Gio 50 game impact
If you are just waking up Gio Gonzalez has been linked to a PED clinic. It might be nothing. Then again, there aren't many other names included on this list and ones that are included Alex Rodriguez (admitted user), Bartolo Colon (suspended 2012), and Melky Cabrera (suspended 2012) so it doesn't look good. Still innocent until suspended.
What we want to know is if Gio is supsended how big an impact losing Gio for 50 games would mean for 2013. 50 games is roughly 30% of the season, meaning Gio would miss roughly 10 starts. That's a pretty big loss.
Of course he wouldn't be replaced by no one. With Gorzo gone, the thought might be that Zack Duke would take up this role, but that doesn't seem likely to me. He is scheduled to be the lone lefty in the pen. He hasn't been a starter since early in 2010. It just seems like work. Christian Garcia is an interesting idea, but just that, and idea. We've talked about how a 2-time TJ surgery reliever shouldn't be pressed immediately into a starting role (probably shouldn't be pressed into a starting role at all). Instead we'd likely have a Spring Training battle with Yunesky Maya being the strong favorite to win.
Maya pitched a lot better in AAA last year than in previous years. 1.186 WHIP, 40 walks in 167 IP. But he's still not that good. 20 homers. Only 89 Ks. A crazy low BABIP .258 that's unlikely to be repeated. But the thing is there isn't anyone after that. Would you rather Tanner Roark? Jeff Mandel? Until you get to A-ball it's a parade of never-weres.
If Maya does pitch and is bad, what does that cost the Nats? Since we are using last year as the baseline and last year Gio was awesome, that's going to be somewhere between 1-2 wins total. I know that doesn't seem like a lot but you have to look at the big picture. There are some games the Nats aren't going to lose no matter who is on the mound. They are that good. Gio might win them 8-2 while Maya gets a win 8-5 but it's still a win. There are going to be a couple games too in those 10 that it doesn't matter who pitches, the Nats will lose. They get shutout, Maya or Gio, they still lose that game. So it's only a handful of games where it actually matters who's the pitcher and to say the Nats win 1-2 more games with Gio than Maya in those handful, that's actually saying it's a big difference between the two.
You can see though, other than being the first step down a slippery slope, a long suspension for Gio would not derail the Nats on it's own. But if you are super scared there is a FA option. No, not Kyle Lohse. If he was willing to walk from the Cardinals he's not coming to the Nats on some small deal. No, I mean Joe Saunders, who wants a multi-year deal, but is now sitting looking at a 1yr deal from Minnesota. He's not great or anything but he's better than Maya. He's AL-> NL. I'm not saying this is the best idea, but if you are desperate to get as many wins as possible it might be a way to go.
Either way now we sit and wait and hope for nothing
What we want to know is if Gio is supsended how big an impact losing Gio for 50 games would mean for 2013. 50 games is roughly 30% of the season, meaning Gio would miss roughly 10 starts. That's a pretty big loss.
Of course he wouldn't be replaced by no one. With Gorzo gone, the thought might be that Zack Duke would take up this role, but that doesn't seem likely to me. He is scheduled to be the lone lefty in the pen. He hasn't been a starter since early in 2010. It just seems like work. Christian Garcia is an interesting idea, but just that, and idea. We've talked about how a 2-time TJ surgery reliever shouldn't be pressed immediately into a starting role (probably shouldn't be pressed into a starting role at all). Instead we'd likely have a Spring Training battle with Yunesky Maya being the strong favorite to win.
Maya pitched a lot better in AAA last year than in previous years. 1.186 WHIP, 40 walks in 167 IP. But he's still not that good. 20 homers. Only 89 Ks. A crazy low BABIP .258 that's unlikely to be repeated. But the thing is there isn't anyone after that. Would you rather Tanner Roark? Jeff Mandel? Until you get to A-ball it's a parade of never-weres.
If Maya does pitch and is bad, what does that cost the Nats? Since we are using last year as the baseline and last year Gio was awesome, that's going to be somewhere between 1-2 wins total. I know that doesn't seem like a lot but you have to look at the big picture. There are some games the Nats aren't going to lose no matter who is on the mound. They are that good. Gio might win them 8-2 while Maya gets a win 8-5 but it's still a win. There are going to be a couple games too in those 10 that it doesn't matter who pitches, the Nats will lose. They get shutout, Maya or Gio, they still lose that game. So it's only a handful of games where it actually matters who's the pitcher and to say the Nats win 1-2 more games with Gio than Maya in those handful, that's actually saying it's a big difference between the two.
You can see though, other than being the first step down a slippery slope, a long suspension for Gio would not derail the Nats on it's own. But if you are super scared there is a FA option. No, not Kyle Lohse. If he was willing to walk from the Cardinals he's not coming to the Nats on some small deal. No, I mean Joe Saunders, who wants a multi-year deal, but is now sitting looking at a 1yr deal from Minnesota. He's not great or anything but he's better than Maya. He's AL-> NL. I'm not saying this is the best idea, but if you are desperate to get as many wins as possible it might be a way to go.
Either way now we sit and wait and hope for nothing
Friday, January 25, 2013
The Nightmare Scenario : Missing the Playoffs
I assume you read the post from yesterday so we can get moving on this one with little explanation. What's the path of least resistance to the Nats doing the unthinkable and missing the playoffs entirely? 96 wins is the starting point remember and you have to get to the 85-87 range in wins to "feel good" about missing the playoffs completely with 2 wild cards. (though the Angels did miss it with 89 wins that's was kind of fluky given historical precedent)
OK first we do have to adjust the win total upwards. There's just no way to avoid it. If Jayson Werth is healthy he will provide more to this team. But let's say he bounces back to a very mediocre year, something between last years showing and the injury plagued 2010. You're looking at maybe an extra 1.5 wins. So we're at 97.5 wins
Then there's Bryce Harper, even if you say he doesn't improve at all if we're lining up Span versus 2011 him and Bryce vs 2011 Morse + Bernie + other guys. He's still going to be better than that. Let's say a win better. 98.5 wins.
Ok now we can start going back down and the easiest way is through career year guys having more normal years. Adam LaRoche -2 wins. 96.5 wins. Gio Gonzalez -0.5 win. 96 wins. Ian Desmond... let's not say all the way back down to the previous year but closer than not, -1.5 wins. 94.5 wins. Denard Span, this kid bounces around, -2 wins. 92.5 wins.
We're still not there yet, are we? I guess the bullpen could be a little worse, these guys do fluctuate a bit just because they don't pitch that often. -0.5 win. 92 wins? We're getting very close to necessitating injury. I guess I'll pull out one more thing and say that catcher ends up being a complete failure with Suzuki hitting the wall and Ramos unable to recover properly. That's only another -0.5 wins though because it wasn't good last year. 91.5 wins.
Gotta stretch even more. Let's also say that Haren's bad performance was more him than injury and he somehow repeats it even though he's going to the NL. -1 win. 90.5 wins.
That's it. That's as low as I can bring the Nats without resorting to injury or a surprise crash of a season. That would likely cost them the division, but it would take some bad luck as well to miss the playoffs. The Cards got in with 88 this year and could have done it with 87.
Ok so let's throw in an injury. It doesn't have to be specific but let's say one of the big three starters go down and they are unable to pull a Detwiler out of their hat again. The replacement is terrible. -3 wins. 87.5 wins. There you go. That's a pretty decent shot at missing the playoffs with just the tiniest of bad luck.
So all they need to miss the playoffs is for everyone who had a career year to revert back to a more normal year, have three little things go bad, and suffer a serious pitcher injury all while no one improves in any significant way over last year. This should tell you one thing. The Nats aren't missing the playoffs next year without serious injury problems or surprise flameouts. Basically it would all have to go bad in "expected" ways otherwise for them to fail.
That's why I call this season a 6-month long injury watch. Lose two pitchers early and the Nats would be staring at a major problem. Throw in a major injury to a key player (Bryce, Zimm, Werth) and the Nats are probably floating around 90 wins as we see some stuff go up and some stuff go down for everyone else on the team. From there missing the playoffs isn't necessarily likely, but it could be a few bouncing balls away.
OK first we do have to adjust the win total upwards. There's just no way to avoid it. If Jayson Werth is healthy he will provide more to this team. But let's say he bounces back to a very mediocre year, something between last years showing and the injury plagued 2010. You're looking at maybe an extra 1.5 wins. So we're at 97.5 wins
Then there's Bryce Harper, even if you say he doesn't improve at all if we're lining up Span versus 2011 him and Bryce vs 2011 Morse + Bernie + other guys. He's still going to be better than that. Let's say a win better. 98.5 wins.
Ok now we can start going back down and the easiest way is through career year guys having more normal years. Adam LaRoche -2 wins. 96.5 wins. Gio Gonzalez -0.5 win. 96 wins. Ian Desmond... let's not say all the way back down to the previous year but closer than not, -1.5 wins. 94.5 wins. Denard Span, this kid bounces around, -2 wins. 92.5 wins.
We're still not there yet, are we? I guess the bullpen could be a little worse, these guys do fluctuate a bit just because they don't pitch that often. -0.5 win. 92 wins? We're getting very close to necessitating injury. I guess I'll pull out one more thing and say that catcher ends up being a complete failure with Suzuki hitting the wall and Ramos unable to recover properly. That's only another -0.5 wins though because it wasn't good last year. 91.5 wins.
Gotta stretch even more. Let's also say that Haren's bad performance was more him than injury and he somehow repeats it even though he's going to the NL. -1 win. 90.5 wins.
That's it. That's as low as I can bring the Nats without resorting to injury or a surprise crash of a season. That would likely cost them the division, but it would take some bad luck as well to miss the playoffs. The Cards got in with 88 this year and could have done it with 87.
Ok so let's throw in an injury. It doesn't have to be specific but let's say one of the big three starters go down and they are unable to pull a Detwiler out of their hat again. The replacement is terrible. -3 wins. 87.5 wins. There you go. That's a pretty decent shot at missing the playoffs with just the tiniest of bad luck.
So all they need to miss the playoffs is for everyone who had a career year to revert back to a more normal year, have three little things go bad, and suffer a serious pitcher injury all while no one improves in any significant way over last year. This should tell you one thing. The Nats aren't missing the playoffs next year without serious injury problems or surprise flameouts. Basically it would all have to go bad in "expected" ways otherwise for them to fail.
That's why I call this season a 6-month long injury watch. Lose two pitchers early and the Nats would be staring at a major problem. Throw in a major injury to a key player (Bryce, Zimm, Werth) and the Nats are probably floating around 90 wins as we see some stuff go up and some stuff go down for everyone else on the team. From there missing the playoffs isn't necessarily likely, but it could be a few bouncing balls away.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Dream Scenario : 110 wins
The Nats season should be pretty predictable. They should win about 95 games and probably win the division, depending on if the Braves or Phillies have a remarkable season themselves. They should definitely make the playoffs. The months of next season are basically a long injury watch.
But we must allow for anything to happen in any season, so I'm going to present two drastic scenarios and what it will take to get there. Today we'll look at the dream scenario, a Nats team that wins 110+ games. It challenges for the best record of all-time and runs basically wire to wire in first place*. This is going to be similar to Dave Schoenfield's work at ESPN that shows if EVERYTHING goes right for the Nats they are actually better than that Seattle team that won 116 games. Of course EVERYTHING isn't going to go right so we're going to try to pick out the path of least resistance to this kind of remarkable season.
*If you win 110 games, this kind of has to happen. If you start slow (13-13 say) then you can only lose about 8 games a month the rest of the year. So you have to catch up to any leader very early in the season.
Last year the Nats won 98 games, but the pythag has them as a 96 win team so let's start there. We'll also make the BIG assumption that no one will get injured. I know it's not likely but to make a run at 110 you kind of need that kind of season.We're also assuming that no one decreases production in any noticeable way, so career years from LaRoche, Span and Desmond will have to be repeated. A stretch for sure, but better than saying they need to do something they never did before.
OK based on the no-injury assumption we are going to get a big bump from Werth. Let's assume he bounces all the way back to his banner times in Philly and puts up a 3.5-4.0 WAR. That's about 3 more wins for the Nats. (a little more but you have to consider they'd lose some of that fine bench replacement time they got this year from the likes of Bernie and Moore. Trust me I'm being more than fair here). 99 wins.
Strasburg too would have an opportunity for a full season, and his potential is up there with the best in the league. Let's say he meets it. That would be about a ~5.0 WAR or so or two more wins. 101 wins.
What about Storen? The pen was very very good last year. So time gained for Storen is likely time lost from a pitcher who did ok, same with Soriano. Plus, it's the pen, it doesn't generate a lot of wins because in total it pitches maybe 40% of all innings. No one guy can make that big a difference. Just can't happen. I'll be generous though and say the Nats gain half a game in the pen. so 101.5 wins.
Haren? He bounces back but he can't quite make it back to his old levels just because he's going to lose 15% of his innings to the Nats being safe. (A lot of his value is that he pitched SO many innings, look! You see the Nats doing that?) Remember too that it's not from Haren's last year, it's Edwin's production he's replacing and Edwin was ok. Let's be generous again 1.5 more wins and the Nats are up to 103 wins.
Ok, we've kind of run out of non-developmental improvement. Where can the Nats get that? Bryce Harper of course. Let's say he has that Mike Trout like 2nd year. That's a big jump from Morse (we're taking Span to match 2012 Bryce based on last years production) but all that extra production from Bernie, Moore, has to go somewhere. I cut out a little from Werth but most falls here. STILL Bryce nets the team an extra 3.5 wins with a season for the ages. 106.5 wins.
Now let's start stretching. Catcher was a bit of a problem, but not as much as you'd think. Suzuki was good at the end. Ramos was good at the start. Over all maybe a half a win more if they both can keep it up over the whole season? 107 wins.
We're still not there and there's not much room for more improvement. What we need now is a break out year and the one place that we can get that is from Danny Espinosa. I can't make him into a superstar, we are trying to be vaguely reasonable here, but he can improve a lot. Let's say 1.5 more wins than last year (he really was still good last year. Fielding! Power!) that puts the Nats at 108.5 wins.
At this point I'll stop because there's one way to 110 wins from here that I think is more likely than 200 IP of Detwiler getting even better or Zimm returning to his best form. What is that way? Same way the 96 win-talented Nats won 98 wins last year. Luck. 1-2 wins is easily in the realm of error for this type of estimation.
There you have it. If the Nats don't get injured, don't see any drops from the career years their roster had last year, and have these 8 things happen in their favor they could get to 110 wins... if they get a little lucky. Take home lesson : getting to 110 wins is hard. That's why only 6 teams have ever done it.
But you see a couple of these 8 things should happen, so even if/when they do get injuries or regression on some of those best years, they should still be about a 95 win team. It all should even out.
Tomorrow : The nightmare scenario - missing the playoffs.
But we must allow for anything to happen in any season, so I'm going to present two drastic scenarios and what it will take to get there. Today we'll look at the dream scenario, a Nats team that wins 110+ games. It challenges for the best record of all-time and runs basically wire to wire in first place*. This is going to be similar to Dave Schoenfield's work at ESPN that shows if EVERYTHING goes right for the Nats they are actually better than that Seattle team that won 116 games. Of course EVERYTHING isn't going to go right so we're going to try to pick out the path of least resistance to this kind of remarkable season.
*If you win 110 games, this kind of has to happen. If you start slow (13-13 say) then you can only lose about 8 games a month the rest of the year. So you have to catch up to any leader very early in the season.
Last year the Nats won 98 games, but the pythag has them as a 96 win team so let's start there. We'll also make the BIG assumption that no one will get injured. I know it's not likely but to make a run at 110 you kind of need that kind of season.We're also assuming that no one decreases production in any noticeable way, so career years from LaRoche, Span and Desmond will have to be repeated. A stretch for sure, but better than saying they need to do something they never did before.
OK based on the no-injury assumption we are going to get a big bump from Werth. Let's assume he bounces all the way back to his banner times in Philly and puts up a 3.5-4.0 WAR. That's about 3 more wins for the Nats. (a little more but you have to consider they'd lose some of that fine bench replacement time they got this year from the likes of Bernie and Moore. Trust me I'm being more than fair here). 99 wins.
Strasburg too would have an opportunity for a full season, and his potential is up there with the best in the league. Let's say he meets it. That would be about a ~5.0 WAR or so or two more wins. 101 wins.
What about Storen? The pen was very very good last year. So time gained for Storen is likely time lost from a pitcher who did ok, same with Soriano. Plus, it's the pen, it doesn't generate a lot of wins because in total it pitches maybe 40% of all innings. No one guy can make that big a difference. Just can't happen. I'll be generous though and say the Nats gain half a game in the pen. so 101.5 wins.
Haren? He bounces back but he can't quite make it back to his old levels just because he's going to lose 15% of his innings to the Nats being safe. (A lot of his value is that he pitched SO many innings, look! You see the Nats doing that?) Remember too that it's not from Haren's last year, it's Edwin's production he's replacing and Edwin was ok. Let's be generous again 1.5 more wins and the Nats are up to 103 wins.
Ok, we've kind of run out of non-developmental improvement. Where can the Nats get that? Bryce Harper of course. Let's say he has that Mike Trout like 2nd year. That's a big jump from Morse (we're taking Span to match 2012 Bryce based on last years production) but all that extra production from Bernie, Moore, has to go somewhere. I cut out a little from Werth but most falls here. STILL Bryce nets the team an extra 3.5 wins with a season for the ages. 106.5 wins.
Now let's start stretching. Catcher was a bit of a problem, but not as much as you'd think. Suzuki was good at the end. Ramos was good at the start. Over all maybe a half a win more if they both can keep it up over the whole season? 107 wins.
We're still not there and there's not much room for more improvement. What we need now is a break out year and the one place that we can get that is from Danny Espinosa. I can't make him into a superstar, we are trying to be vaguely reasonable here, but he can improve a lot. Let's say 1.5 more wins than last year (he really was still good last year. Fielding! Power!) that puts the Nats at 108.5 wins.
At this point I'll stop because there's one way to 110 wins from here that I think is more likely than 200 IP of Detwiler getting even better or Zimm returning to his best form. What is that way? Same way the 96 win-talented Nats won 98 wins last year. Luck. 1-2 wins is easily in the realm of error for this type of estimation.
There you have it. If the Nats don't get injured, don't see any drops from the career years their roster had last year, and have these 8 things happen in their favor they could get to 110 wins... if they get a little lucky. Take home lesson : getting to 110 wins is hard. That's why only 6 teams have ever done it.
But you see a couple of these 8 things should happen, so even if/when they do get injuries or regression on some of those best years, they should still be about a 95 win team. It all should even out.
Tomorrow : The nightmare scenario - missing the playoffs.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Mailbag Tuesday
Would a succesful Redskins effect Nats revenue? (Thomas Richman)
This is a tough question to effectively answer. Thinking about it simply it should effect it as there is a finite amount of disposable revenue to go around, but I have a hard time believing it would do so to the level that it matters. In the end the Nats winning or losing is driving their revenue.
Looking at some numbers, ratings for Nats games overall increased over the season (53% up in June, 74% by season's end). Do I think Sunday ratings probably dipped? Yes. But one day a week for a couple months isn't going to drive any contract deals.
The attendance figures are too few to draw any conclusions, but hey why not try anyway? They only had two home games up against the Skins. On Sept 9th they played Miami and drew 24,396 against the Skins season opener. That was their worst attendance on a Sunday all year. This suggests an effect. On Sept 23rd they played the Brewers and drew 33,111 against the Skins home opener vs the Bengals. Maybe that was a littlel low? It's hard to tell, the Nats were in control and playing a team that's not a draw. I'm not seeing much of an effect here.
If I had to guess I'd say BIG games for the Skins will demonstrably effect the Nats attendance, like the opener seemingly did. But how many BIG games will take place on a Sunday day when the Nats are at home? If the Skins are good more of those big games will be on Sunday and Monday nights, if not Thursdays. So it may matter once or twice a year.
As for jersey sales and other merchandise, I don't know how to judge where the Nats should be, so I can't really say if they are falling short. The biggest effect will probably be on sports talk radio coverage, but does it really bother you what those clowns are talking about?
Again - does it have some effect? Sure. Is it something to worry about? I don't think so. Certainly not as long as the Nats keep winning.
Thoughts on the bullpen LH situation? (Keith Watts)
The Nats have one lefty (Zack Duke) in the pen now, with Gonzo, Gorzo, and Burnett all going elsewhere. Should they be worried? For now, no. I think over the long haul of the season, a true LOOGY (ie a guy that can get lefties out and not much else) is a hinderance, not a help. You need flexibility in the pen and that's better served by a guy who can do well in all situations than a guy who's maybe a one or two batter pitcher a game.
Do the Nats have guys that do well in all situations? Yep. Career vs lefties:
Clippard .186 / .268 / .325
Stammen .266 / .310 / .407
Mattheus .214 / .294 / .343
Storen .229 / .287 / .297
Soriano .233 / .309 / .395
Except for Mattheus, who got hit, let's say "mildly hard" last year, all these guys were just as good or better in 2012 vs lefties. In other words - they can get everyone out.
Now what happens in the play-offs? Flexibility is less important there as you may ride the same 3-4 arms in important situations. In the playoffs a LOOGY could be more useful, but there aren't going to be many guys, even guys who are supposedly LOOGYs that can put up better numbers that what Clippard or Storen have done.So you either pay through the nose for an O'Flaherty type or you go with your pretty damn good second options. I think for now, it's better to see if plan A- works then to put out that money or talent.
Do you think Randy Knorr is going to be the next manager and do you think that it matters ? (Keith Watts)
Yes, I do think Knorr is lined up to be the manager. Does it matter? There isn't really any strong evidence that it does. I'd say I believe with a common medium thought. The difference between a great manager and a good one or even an ok one is going to be hardly noticeable. However a bad manager can cost you a few games through particularly bad decision making. Of course I have no proof of this.
There is some thought that a manager matters more in the playoffs but I tend to believe that the results make the manager more than vice versa. If Edwin Jackson gets through that 2nd inning somehow, the numbers of people saying Davey was dumb drops dramatically. "HE KNEW SOMETHING WE DIDN'T!!!!"
In the end it's going to be a Rizzo led team and I assume Knorr is lined up because he will follow Rizzo's lead. If it's not him it'll be someone else who Rizzo thinks will go along with his vision.
How do you see the Long-term money management working out for all those young players : Stras, ZNN, Bryce, Ian... (Jonathan Doerr)
I think they will do the following in this order -
Why not ZNN? Because by that time the Nats will be paying Werth, Gio, and Zimm 45 mill combined for 2016. Desmond will likely cost over 10. Strasburg should be making a bunch several years into arbitration and Bryce should be up for a big raise in his first arbitration year. Espy and Ramos will be well into arbitration figures as well... (that's assuming they haven't signed any of these guys long term which would be even more $$$ already designated) If they've signed anyone else of value you could be looking at something like 100+ million set for 9-10 players or so. Unless they take want to scrape the luxury tax or have a ton of cheap guys doing well they need to make a cut somewhere. Zimmermann, turning 30, would be an easy place to start.
Why let Strasburg walk? If things go as we think they could he'll be looking for a deal that's the richest pitching contract in the majors. 25 mill a year for 7 years? It could be that high EASY. They could do that but if they do that AND sign Bryce they'd be looking at maybe 50+ million for these two combined for the back end of the 2010s. You're still paying Zimm at this point. Did Desmond re-sign? Espy? Ramos? It's going to be near impossible to keep all these guys if they are good. You make your choices. Say Ramos and Desmond and free agent X instead of Strasburg. I think that instead of Strasburg they bet hard on the bat that's younger (Bryce will hit FA at 26), probably trying to sign him to a LONG deal (like 10 yr or so) a couple of years prior to hitting FA.
Best walk-up songs (Froggy)
I must admit I don't follow walk up songs. I couldn't name more than 5 probably and no other Nats. Chipper has 'Crazy Train'. Paul O'Neill used 'Baba O'Reilly'*. Does Mariano's 'Enter Sandman' count? So as Froggy suggested I'll leave it up to the commenters to give their opinions.
I can tell you that if I were a baseball player I would like to take a live mic and sing a song as I walked to the box. Assuming they wouldn't allow that (Oh the sportswriter angst that would cause!) I would use dogs barking 'Jingle Bells'. As you see, I don't really take the whole mental buildup thing seriously.
*I rarely wax poetic but Baba O'Reilly on a crisp fall night will always feel like playoff baseball to me, and I don't even like the Who.
About Strasburg, Rizzo said "I think the other four or five starters will piggyback off of his success." Any chance this means a 6-man rotation? (Mick Sutter)
I don't think he meant anything by it. The Nats will have more than four starters, but that's because of injury or the fluke double header, or maybe a rest day in a long stretch. I don't think he's going full 6-man (and I think it would dumb of the team to do so)
A 6-man rotation is something that teams have flirted with once or twice but in reality it makes little sense. Your rotation should be determined in a way to maximize the number of times your best pitchers pitch while limiting injury. I think in the near future, next 10 years or so, you may actually see a return to a 4-man rotation with limited pitch counts. There is some evidence (though not striking in my estimation) that pitch counts, not innings pitched necessarily are what drives injury. With an older rotation I would totally do this.
Of course the problem is injuries are going to happen regardless and if you do this plan and someone gets injured you WILL get blamed. So it'll take GM who is willing to risk his job.
What's it like to root for a team expected to win (cass)
A normal Yankee fan would have trouble answering this question, given that they've usually seen mutliple World Series titles before they hit puberty, but I am a member of a select Yankee fan group, those precious few born at a time where they were able to spend their whole adolescence rooting for a team that was alternately good, mediocre, and bad and most importantly never made the playoffs. So I remember the transition from rooting for a non-playoff team to a playoff team, which I think is applicable here. (Both off a crushing DS loss in their first playoffs)
This year a sense of urgency will be all over the place. On one hand, since the playoffs is not old hat, you'll still be worried about making it. Start 10-15 and you won't be thinking "oh maybe we can turn it around, I guess" but instead "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG!?!?" Of course this is also a positive, no longer do you have to be resigned to a slow dirge of a season if they start slow. Instead you know the talent is there to still make it in. Now if the Nats are as good as everyone thinks they are this won't be an issue for long, but it could be something that hangs over your head. Who knows if maybe the Phillies have that combeack year? Likewise, the Wild Card position too will be a thorn in your side as well, thanks to the new playoff rules, and that's not likely to go away, though it's not the door slamming shut like missing the playoffs entirely.
On the other hand, once you are in the playoffs you will also NEED to win. Last year was terrible and all but heading into this year the feeling around the Nationals seems to be "OK, Now let's do this". Lose in the first round again and that "OK" disappears and is replaced with the aformentioned "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG?!?" Even a NLDS victory is probably not be enough to satisfy most.
Ok so let's say the Nats do win the World Series, the urgency goes away right? Nope, at least for me it didn't until the 2nd World Series was won. The first is more a relief. You saw your team win it all. You can check that off your life goals. But the same feeling of dread, like your window has closed, will follow the next playoff loss. That was it! Hope you enjoyed it! So the second one is almost as needed and almost as special. After two I'll say this some situations (like facing the Mets in 2000) bring back that level of urgency that might be missing if they were in another situation, and for some fans situation won't matter, they'll want to win no matter what.
After that it becomes hard for me to say because the Yankee scenario diverges into the bizarre. What's it like after winning FOUR World Series in five years? You do become a little non-chalant about a title... for a little while (It was 2007 before I was back up to the "NEED TO WIN" level - and honestly a lot of that was because the Red Sox has won two more recently than the Yanks and the Sports Talk radio people would not let up about the Yanks not being able to win with A-Rod. If I was going to keep reading about baseball and listening to baseball I needed the Red Sox off the "best team" lists and the A-Rod talk over). What's it like to make the playoffs nearly every year? You don't become blase about it, but missing it is no big deal and slow starts no longer provoke "WHAT THE HELL"s, instead you feel like they'll certainly get there somehow because they always have. It's a nice place to be though, and I hope you guys manage to get there.
This is a tough question to effectively answer. Thinking about it simply it should effect it as there is a finite amount of disposable revenue to go around, but I have a hard time believing it would do so to the level that it matters. In the end the Nats winning or losing is driving their revenue.
Looking at some numbers, ratings for Nats games overall increased over the season (53% up in June, 74% by season's end). Do I think Sunday ratings probably dipped? Yes. But one day a week for a couple months isn't going to drive any contract deals.
The attendance figures are too few to draw any conclusions, but hey why not try anyway? They only had two home games up against the Skins. On Sept 9th they played Miami and drew 24,396 against the Skins season opener. That was their worst attendance on a Sunday all year. This suggests an effect. On Sept 23rd they played the Brewers and drew 33,111 against the Skins home opener vs the Bengals. Maybe that was a littlel low? It's hard to tell, the Nats were in control and playing a team that's not a draw. I'm not seeing much of an effect here.
If I had to guess I'd say BIG games for the Skins will demonstrably effect the Nats attendance, like the opener seemingly did. But how many BIG games will take place on a Sunday day when the Nats are at home? If the Skins are good more of those big games will be on Sunday and Monday nights, if not Thursdays. So it may matter once or twice a year.
As for jersey sales and other merchandise, I don't know how to judge where the Nats should be, so I can't really say if they are falling short. The biggest effect will probably be on sports talk radio coverage, but does it really bother you what those clowns are talking about?
Again - does it have some effect? Sure. Is it something to worry about? I don't think so. Certainly not as long as the Nats keep winning.
Thoughts on the bullpen LH situation? (Keith Watts)
The Nats have one lefty (Zack Duke) in the pen now, with Gonzo, Gorzo, and Burnett all going elsewhere. Should they be worried? For now, no. I think over the long haul of the season, a true LOOGY (ie a guy that can get lefties out and not much else) is a hinderance, not a help. You need flexibility in the pen and that's better served by a guy who can do well in all situations than a guy who's maybe a one or two batter pitcher a game.
Do the Nats have guys that do well in all situations? Yep. Career vs lefties:
Clippard .186 / .268 / .325
Stammen .266 / .310 / .407
Mattheus .214 / .294 / .343
Storen .229 / .287 / .297
Soriano .233 / .309 / .395
Except for Mattheus, who got hit, let's say "mildly hard" last year, all these guys were just as good or better in 2012 vs lefties. In other words - they can get everyone out.
Now what happens in the play-offs? Flexibility is less important there as you may ride the same 3-4 arms in important situations. In the playoffs a LOOGY could be more useful, but there aren't going to be many guys, even guys who are supposedly LOOGYs that can put up better numbers that what Clippard or Storen have done.So you either pay through the nose for an O'Flaherty type or you go with your pretty damn good second options. I think for now, it's better to see if plan A- works then to put out that money or talent.
Do you think Randy Knorr is going to be the next manager and do you think that it matters ? (Keith Watts)
Yes, I do think Knorr is lined up to be the manager. Does it matter? There isn't really any strong evidence that it does. I'd say I believe with a common medium thought. The difference between a great manager and a good one or even an ok one is going to be hardly noticeable. However a bad manager can cost you a few games through particularly bad decision making. Of course I have no proof of this.
There is some thought that a manager matters more in the playoffs but I tend to believe that the results make the manager more than vice versa. If Edwin Jackson gets through that 2nd inning somehow, the numbers of people saying Davey was dumb drops dramatically. "HE KNEW SOMETHING WE DIDN'T!!!!"
In the end it's going to be a Rizzo led team and I assume Knorr is lined up because he will follow Rizzo's lead. If it's not him it'll be someone else who Rizzo thinks will go along with his vision.
How do you see the Long-term money management working out for all those young players : Stras, ZNN, Bryce, Ian... (Jonathan Doerr)
I think they will do the following in this order -
- Try to get ZNN on a long-term deal that clearly favors the Nats
- Sign Desmond to a fair long-term deal
- Let Stras walk with only a token try at keeping him
- Try to sign Bryce as hard as possible
Why not ZNN? Because by that time the Nats will be paying Werth, Gio, and Zimm 45 mill combined for 2016. Desmond will likely cost over 10. Strasburg should be making a bunch several years into arbitration and Bryce should be up for a big raise in his first arbitration year. Espy and Ramos will be well into arbitration figures as well... (that's assuming they haven't signed any of these guys long term which would be even more $$$ already designated) If they've signed anyone else of value you could be looking at something like 100+ million set for 9-10 players or so. Unless they take want to scrape the luxury tax or have a ton of cheap guys doing well they need to make a cut somewhere. Zimmermann, turning 30, would be an easy place to start.
Why let Strasburg walk? If things go as we think they could he'll be looking for a deal that's the richest pitching contract in the majors. 25 mill a year for 7 years? It could be that high EASY. They could do that but if they do that AND sign Bryce they'd be looking at maybe 50+ million for these two combined for the back end of the 2010s. You're still paying Zimm at this point. Did Desmond re-sign? Espy? Ramos? It's going to be near impossible to keep all these guys if they are good. You make your choices. Say Ramos and Desmond and free agent X instead of Strasburg. I think that instead of Strasburg they bet hard on the bat that's younger (Bryce will hit FA at 26), probably trying to sign him to a LONG deal (like 10 yr or so) a couple of years prior to hitting FA.
Best walk-up songs (Froggy)
I must admit I don't follow walk up songs. I couldn't name more than 5 probably and no other Nats. Chipper has 'Crazy Train'. Paul O'Neill used 'Baba O'Reilly'*. Does Mariano's 'Enter Sandman' count? So as Froggy suggested I'll leave it up to the commenters to give their opinions.
I can tell you that if I were a baseball player I would like to take a live mic and sing a song as I walked to the box. Assuming they wouldn't allow that (Oh the sportswriter angst that would cause!) I would use dogs barking 'Jingle Bells'. As you see, I don't really take the whole mental buildup thing seriously.
*I rarely wax poetic but Baba O'Reilly on a crisp fall night will always feel like playoff baseball to me, and I don't even like the Who.
About Strasburg, Rizzo said "I think the other four or five starters will piggyback off of his success." Any chance this means a 6-man rotation? (Mick Sutter)
I don't think he meant anything by it. The Nats will have more than four starters, but that's because of injury or the fluke double header, or maybe a rest day in a long stretch. I don't think he's going full 6-man (and I think it would dumb of the team to do so)
A 6-man rotation is something that teams have flirted with once or twice but in reality it makes little sense. Your rotation should be determined in a way to maximize the number of times your best pitchers pitch while limiting injury. I think in the near future, next 10 years or so, you may actually see a return to a 4-man rotation with limited pitch counts. There is some evidence (though not striking in my estimation) that pitch counts, not innings pitched necessarily are what drives injury. With an older rotation I would totally do this.
Of course the problem is injuries are going to happen regardless and if you do this plan and someone gets injured you WILL get blamed. So it'll take GM who is willing to risk his job.
What's it like to root for a team expected to win (cass)
A normal Yankee fan would have trouble answering this question, given that they've usually seen mutliple World Series titles before they hit puberty, but I am a member of a select Yankee fan group, those precious few born at a time where they were able to spend their whole adolescence rooting for a team that was alternately good, mediocre, and bad and most importantly never made the playoffs. So I remember the transition from rooting for a non-playoff team to a playoff team, which I think is applicable here. (Both off a crushing DS loss in their first playoffs)
This year a sense of urgency will be all over the place. On one hand, since the playoffs is not old hat, you'll still be worried about making it. Start 10-15 and you won't be thinking "oh maybe we can turn it around, I guess" but instead "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG!?!?" Of course this is also a positive, no longer do you have to be resigned to a slow dirge of a season if they start slow. Instead you know the talent is there to still make it in. Now if the Nats are as good as everyone thinks they are this won't be an issue for long, but it could be something that hangs over your head. Who knows if maybe the Phillies have that combeack year? Likewise, the Wild Card position too will be a thorn in your side as well, thanks to the new playoff rules, and that's not likely to go away, though it's not the door slamming shut like missing the playoffs entirely.
On the other hand, once you are in the playoffs you will also NEED to win. Last year was terrible and all but heading into this year the feeling around the Nationals seems to be "OK, Now let's do this". Lose in the first round again and that "OK" disappears and is replaced with the aformentioned "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG?!?" Even a NLDS victory is probably not be enough to satisfy most.
Ok so let's say the Nats do win the World Series, the urgency goes away right? Nope, at least for me it didn't until the 2nd World Series was won. The first is more a relief. You saw your team win it all. You can check that off your life goals. But the same feeling of dread, like your window has closed, will follow the next playoff loss. That was it! Hope you enjoyed it! So the second one is almost as needed and almost as special. After two I'll say this some situations (like facing the Mets in 2000) bring back that level of urgency that might be missing if they were in another situation, and for some fans situation won't matter, they'll want to win no matter what.
After that it becomes hard for me to say because the Yankee scenario diverges into the bizarre. What's it like after winning FOUR World Series in five years? You do become a little non-chalant about a title... for a little while (It was 2007 before I was back up to the "NEED TO WIN" level - and honestly a lot of that was because the Red Sox has won two more recently than the Yanks and the Sports Talk radio people would not let up about the Yanks not being able to win with A-Rod. If I was going to keep reading about baseball and listening to baseball I needed the Red Sox off the "best team" lists and the A-Rod talk over). What's it like to make the playoffs nearly every year? You don't become blase about it, but missing it is no big deal and slow starts no longer provoke "WHAT THE HELL"s, instead you feel like they'll certainly get there somehow because they always have. It's a nice place to be though, and I hope you guys manage to get there.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Closer by committee of one
If you've paid even a small bit of attention to the talk around the signing of Soriano you might have heard people mention Davey's "A" and "B" bullpen plan. There seems to be some confusion about what that means, with a lot of people thinking that Storen may still get a decent amount of chances to close as the "B" closer.
According to Baseball Prospectus though, Davey had never meant that the closer was part of the A and B designations, rather everyone else that pitched before the closer would tend to fit in one group or the other so he could easily keep track of guys getting enough off days for rest. While I can't tell you if that in itself is true(sounds like a fun correlation exercise though!), a simple look at last season will tell you Davey doesn't usually rotate closers. When H-Rod lost the job to Clippard, Clippard took all the save opportunities. When Storen came back from injury he was first not the closer, and then he won the job back. At no point was there a committee where Clippard got a chance, then Storen, and repeat. So why do some people think of it as something else? Two reasons.
At the beginning of last year remember, the Nats had NO closer. Davey was determined to keep Clippard pitching the 8th (for some reason), so both Lidge and H-Rod were put in as closers. In this scenario, Davey did indeed rotate save chances... for about a month until Lidge proved completely unworthy. So it certainly seemed that this new coach that talked about A and B pens meant it as rotating closers if he felt he had the talent. Adding to the confusion was Rizzo sort of saying as much, when talking about the Nats situation.
The second reason is that he DID do this. Back in the mid 80s with the Mets, Davey did use two closers fairly regularly. Take a look at the 1st and 2nd guys in save opportunities over his first five years managing :
1984 : 39, 18
1985 : 25, 23
1986 : 29, 28
1987 : 32, 22
1988 : 29, 20
(Another thing - most of this was a lefty/righty thing which doesn't apply to the 2013 Nats)
But by early in 1989 McDowell and Orosco, who were big parts of these scenarios would be gone and for the rest of his managerial career Davey clearly favored one guy and only in 1994 would he come close to trying to mix it up again
1989 : 29, 11
1990 : 39, 5
1993 : 28, 12*
1994 : 21, 11, 8
1995 : 32, 9
1996 : 38, 8
1997 : 46, 10
1999 : 39, 5
2000 : 34, 7
2011 : 48, 11
*If this looks a little fishy to you Dibble got injured in 1993 and missed time and that's when Jeff Reardon got 8 of his 12 save opportunities. Otherwise Dibble was it
This is all just a roundabout way of saying that you shouldn't expect Storen to get more than a handful of opportunities to close if Soriano is healthy and effective. I would probably bet on something in the single digits.
According to Baseball Prospectus though, Davey had never meant that the closer was part of the A and B designations, rather everyone else that pitched before the closer would tend to fit in one group or the other so he could easily keep track of guys getting enough off days for rest. While I can't tell you if that in itself is true(sounds like a fun correlation exercise though!), a simple look at last season will tell you Davey doesn't usually rotate closers. When H-Rod lost the job to Clippard, Clippard took all the save opportunities. When Storen came back from injury he was first not the closer, and then he won the job back. At no point was there a committee where Clippard got a chance, then Storen, and repeat. So why do some people think of it as something else? Two reasons.
At the beginning of last year remember, the Nats had NO closer. Davey was determined to keep Clippard pitching the 8th (for some reason), so both Lidge and H-Rod were put in as closers. In this scenario, Davey did indeed rotate save chances... for about a month until Lidge proved completely unworthy. So it certainly seemed that this new coach that talked about A and B pens meant it as rotating closers if he felt he had the talent. Adding to the confusion was Rizzo sort of saying as much, when talking about the Nats situation.
Just as a for instance, Davey has what we call an A/B bullpen. Instead of being locked into one guy as your closer, or your seventh- or eighth-inning guy, he makes sure he has a B guy who can step into that role in case the A guy can't go.Now really you shouldn't interpret that as being a committee but rather a secondary guy who gets closing scraps if the closer has worked too many games. But if you were already inclined to think of the A/B plan as a "one then the other" situation, you could read this in a way to back you up.
The second reason is that he DID do this. Back in the mid 80s with the Mets, Davey did use two closers fairly regularly. Take a look at the 1st and 2nd guys in save opportunities over his first five years managing :
1984 : 39, 18
1985 : 25, 23
1986 : 29, 28
1987 : 32, 22
1988 : 29, 20
(Another thing - most of this was a lefty/righty thing which doesn't apply to the 2013 Nats)
But by early in 1989 McDowell and Orosco, who were big parts of these scenarios would be gone and for the rest of his managerial career Davey clearly favored one guy and only in 1994 would he come close to trying to mix it up again
1989 : 29, 11
1990 : 39, 5
1993 : 28, 12*
1994 : 21, 11, 8
1995 : 32, 9
1996 : 38, 8
1997 : 46, 10
1999 : 39, 5
2000 : 34, 7
2011 : 48, 11
*If this looks a little fishy to you Dibble got injured in 1993 and missed time and that's when Jeff Reardon got 8 of his 12 save opportunities. Otherwise Dibble was it
This is all just a roundabout way of saying that you shouldn't expect Storen to get more than a handful of opportunities to close if Soriano is healthy and effective. I would probably bet on something in the single digits.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Win now! Wait... not NOW now.
Mike Morse is gone. He was traded overnight to the Mariners in a 3-team deal that has so far brought back the Nats AJ Cole and Blake Treinen. It will also include a player to be named later.
It's a fair deal, in my opinion. We've discussed why Mike Morse, a guy who could hit .300 with 30 HR is not a big trade target. They weren't going to get back any really good major league talent or even a good prospect close to being in the major leagues, outside of maybe relief arms. Instead they've gotten two guys who are at least a couple of years away who add some organizational pitching depth to a team who's current minor league pitching can be described as 40 guys with arms held together with fishing wire now that Meyer has been dealt and they let Rosenbaum walk.
AJ Cole, who you may remember as being a Nats not so long ago, is still a legit prospect. While he didn't do well in Advanced A ball (ok he outright stunk it up), he will still be only 21 this year. I can't even call that a step back at that age. More like, he didn't step forward. He's still got all his talent and he'll have another two years to figure out A+ ball before anyone starts pondering other plans for Mr. Cole.
Blake Treinen is kind of a throw-in. He's got a ton of talent too, but was pretty hittable in A+ ball last year. Still it's a hitting friendly league so he was about average, but at 24 in that league you are kind of done with starters if what you see is just average. The most likely turn of events for Blake is a move to the pen but I'd expect the Nats to mess around with him starting for one more year at least. The Nats literally had no starter last year have a good year at a young age for his league. High-A and AA, where most of the studs usually sit, was a wasteland. Maybe the PTBNL will help, maybe not.
The more important side of this is it makes the Nats worse in 2013, right after they made kind of a silly move that seemed only concerned with making them better in 2013. Morse was going to get some at bats, and he was fine insurance for an OF / 1B situation that includes one guy with concussion issues and two old guys one year removed from season-killing injuries. Now the responsibility for covering for these guys falls onto Bernadina and Moore.
Bernie had a great year off the bench last year, but also sported a BABIP much higher than he ever had before. On the plus side he IS hitting the ball better (LD% is up) so I don't think he'll hit in the .240s this year, but the .290s is also unlikely. High .260s and no power seems fair. Really though Bernie isn't on the bench for long term solutions. He's there to be a fair defensive replacement and pinch runner.
Moore on the other hand is ALL about hitting and when most people think of his 2012 they think of happiness. I agree, as in it was a season that was just an illusion, full of sadness and confusion. If you look at Moore's monthly splits you see this:
TERRIBLE!
OMG GREATEST PLAYER EVER!
VERY BAD!
BELOW AVERAGE!
VERY BAD BUT WITH AN EXTRA HOMER!
That one month - where everything went right for Moore really skewed the season. He had a .481 BABIP. That's crazy. He walked 8 times. He walked 6 times the rest of the year combined. And it's not in like those other months things broke wrong for him. That "very bad" and "below average" months were very fair for him luck-wise.
What does this mean? Well it mainly means you shouldn't consider Moore a viable long-term replacement at any position. He's a one trick pony - a masher of LHP you bring up to put one over the fence when you need it. He's no Morse, who at least had two tricks.
In the end, if there are no big injuries, this isn't going to be a big deal. It may not even cost the Nats a win overall. Morse wasn't going to get a ton of at bats and 6.75 mill is a lot of cash for insurance. Now, if there is a big injury then you're could feel the effects of Morse being gone. It's still not going to be enough to knock the Nats into any trouble, but it does make them a tiny bit worse.
On Tuesday it looked like the Nats were going all in. On Wednesday they showed that they actually palmed a few chips because, you know, let's not be crazy about this.
It's a fair deal, in my opinion. We've discussed why Mike Morse, a guy who could hit .300 with 30 HR is not a big trade target. They weren't going to get back any really good major league talent or even a good prospect close to being in the major leagues, outside of maybe relief arms. Instead they've gotten two guys who are at least a couple of years away who add some organizational pitching depth to a team who's current minor league pitching can be described as 40 guys with arms held together with fishing wire now that Meyer has been dealt and they let Rosenbaum walk.
AJ Cole, who you may remember as being a Nats not so long ago, is still a legit prospect. While he didn't do well in Advanced A ball (ok he outright stunk it up), he will still be only 21 this year. I can't even call that a step back at that age. More like, he didn't step forward. He's still got all his talent and he'll have another two years to figure out A+ ball before anyone starts pondering other plans for Mr. Cole.
Blake Treinen is kind of a throw-in. He's got a ton of talent too, but was pretty hittable in A+ ball last year. Still it's a hitting friendly league so he was about average, but at 24 in that league you are kind of done with starters if what you see is just average. The most likely turn of events for Blake is a move to the pen but I'd expect the Nats to mess around with him starting for one more year at least. The Nats literally had no starter last year have a good year at a young age for his league. High-A and AA, where most of the studs usually sit, was a wasteland. Maybe the PTBNL will help, maybe not.
The more important side of this is it makes the Nats worse in 2013, right after they made kind of a silly move that seemed only concerned with making them better in 2013. Morse was going to get some at bats, and he was fine insurance for an OF / 1B situation that includes one guy with concussion issues and two old guys one year removed from season-killing injuries. Now the responsibility for covering for these guys falls onto Bernadina and Moore.
Bernie had a great year off the bench last year, but also sported a BABIP much higher than he ever had before. On the plus side he IS hitting the ball better (LD% is up) so I don't think he'll hit in the .240s this year, but the .290s is also unlikely. High .260s and no power seems fair. Really though Bernie isn't on the bench for long term solutions. He's there to be a fair defensive replacement and pinch runner.
Moore on the other hand is ALL about hitting and when most people think of his 2012 they think of happiness. I agree, as in it was a season that was just an illusion, full of sadness and confusion. If you look at Moore's monthly splits you see this:
TERRIBLE!
OMG GREATEST PLAYER EVER!
VERY BAD!
BELOW AVERAGE!
VERY BAD BUT WITH AN EXTRA HOMER!
That one month - where everything went right for Moore really skewed the season. He had a .481 BABIP. That's crazy. He walked 8 times. He walked 6 times the rest of the year combined. And it's not in like those other months things broke wrong for him. That "very bad" and "below average" months were very fair for him luck-wise.
What does this mean? Well it mainly means you shouldn't consider Moore a viable long-term replacement at any position. He's a one trick pony - a masher of LHP you bring up to put one over the fence when you need it. He's no Morse, who at least had two tricks.
In the end, if there are no big injuries, this isn't going to be a big deal. It may not even cost the Nats a win overall. Morse wasn't going to get a ton of at bats and 6.75 mill is a lot of cash for insurance. Now, if there is a big injury then you're could feel the effects of Morse being gone. It's still not going to be enough to knock the Nats into any trouble, but it does make them a tiny bit worse.
On Tuesday it looked like the Nats were going all in. On Wednesday they showed that they actually palmed a few chips because, you know, let's not be crazy about this.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Terrible execution but they stuck the landing
I'm the parent of a toddler. As any parent can tell you feeding time can be difficult. You only want them to eat right for their own good but all the pleading and prodding in the world can go nowhere if the child's mood isn't right. Other times though, you have almost the opposite problem. You'll tell them over and over to eat their broccoli and suddenly they'll shove three pieces in their mouth. You want to stop them and tell them we don't eat that way, that they could choke. Then again they are eating broccoli. Three pieces! So maybe you just shut up.
This is kind of how I feel about the Nats deal. I've been saying for a while that the Nats are going to have to spend more money. At the level of winning the Nats are at you start spending more for each subsequent win. A lot of times it's not even for better results necessarily but a smaller chance at bad results. Since the Nats needed bullpen help I noted that they would have to spend the money necessary for a Burnett. If they were a "real contender" they'd have to pony up a few million for a veteran middle reliever who's only real advantage over the cheap young arm is the higher certainty he won't blow up. You watch Burnett leave, Howell sign, and you keep saying, you are going to have to do something like that. It's just what healthy competitive teams do. Then the Nats go ahead and shove three pieces of broccoli in their mouths by signing Soriano.
It's not a bad deal. A bad deal makes a team worse now or effects their chances at being good later. This deal doesn't make the team worse now, it makes them better. At only 2 years it shouldn't effect any long term planning either. So I have a hard time calling it a bad deal.
It's not a smart deal, though. They are way overpaying for what Soriano brings to the table. After seeing the Nats make deal after deal that were at fair market value or actually underpaid for talent, its a bit of a shock. But it's what we were saying they'd have to do anyway, overpay for veteran talent to make the Nats better. It's just bigger and splashier than we would have expected.
Is this unfair to Storen (assuming Soriano will close)? I think so. Sure he blew that last game but it was one game. If you are using that as proof the Nats need a "veteran" closer you've spent the last 40 years asleep in a cave likeRumplestilksin Rip Van Winkle. But whatever. So it's unfair. Sometimes things happen that aren't fair. Buck up, Drew. It's a job.
In the end how does one react to the right thing being done in a stupid silly way? The Nats way overpaid for a reliever who didn't exactly fit their needs. They brought in a guy who's not a great clubhouse guy. They lost a draft pick in the deal. But they made the team better and addressed the hole in the bullpen. So what do you do?
You shut up and hope they don't choke on it.
It's not a smart deal, though. They are way overpaying for what Soriano brings to the table. After seeing the Nats make deal after deal that were at fair market value or actually underpaid for talent, its a bit of a shock. But it's what we were saying they'd have to do anyway, overpay for veteran talent to make the Nats better. It's just bigger and splashier than we would have expected.
Is this unfair to Storen (assuming Soriano will close)? I think so. Sure he blew that last game but it was one game. If you are using that as proof the Nats need a "veteran" closer you've spent the last 40 years asleep in a cave like
In the end how does one react to the right thing being done in a stupid silly way? The Nats way overpaid for a reliever who didn't exactly fit their needs. They brought in a guy who's not a great clubhouse guy. They lost a draft pick in the deal. But they made the team better and addressed the hole in the bullpen. So what do you do?
You shut up and hope they don't choke on it.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Soriano???!?!?!!
ELVENTY!?
Is a secondary deal is coming and that most likely involves Storen? Storen and Morse and Goodwin for Price? Or is this just making the bullpen a big strength?
Quick Update
As a Yankee fan I'll tell you that Soriano spent 2011 in the 8th inning role, pitched poorly and constantly blamed it on the fact that he wasn't closing. So let's think of some facts here
If it is a Rizzo move then it's about dealing Storen. HAS to be. Storen is bringing back more in a trade than Clippard, occupies the role Soriano wants. If someone told Rizzo, "If you want X, we want Storen" he might have seen there was a very good closer available still and thought he could maintain the pen after trading Drew if he signed Rafeal. That makes more sense to me.
Ponder, Muse, Question....
Is a secondary deal is coming and that most likely involves Storen? Storen and Morse and Goodwin for Price? Or is this just making the bullpen a big strength?
Quick Update
As a Yankee fan I'll tell you that Soriano spent 2011 in the 8th inning role, pitched poorly and constantly blamed it on the fact that he wasn't closing. So let's think of some facts here
- Rizzo doesn't like overpaying
- Rizzo doesn't like overpaying even a little bit for relief pitchers
- Rizzo likes having those draft picks
- Rizzo wants only great clubhouse guys
If it is a Rizzo move then it's about dealing Storen. HAS to be. Storen is bringing back more in a trade than Clippard, occupies the role Soriano wants. If someone told Rizzo, "If you want X, we want Storen" he might have seen there was a very good closer available still and thought he could maintain the pen after trading Drew if he signed Rafeal. That makes more sense to me.
Ponder, Muse, Question....
Monday, January 14, 2013
Mike Morse still a Nat
Mike Morses unite in support!
Comedian!
Party Tent Sales Manager!
Professor of Photojournalism!
Red Wolf Biologist! (that does sound pretty cool)
DJ!
Michigan Car Accident Attorney!
Here's a question to you. It's my belief that Mike Morse won't fetch all that much in return. While it's completely true that a healthy Mike Morse will probably hit really well there are just too many questions / problems with him.
He does not field well. Yes, he was drafted as a short stop but that was a body type ago, and frankly it doesn't look like he was a good SS anyway. He's among the lowest players in value on the basepaths. Although the past couple years have quieted the fears, his strikeout to walk ratio still is going to give pause to teams. He's only signed for one more year so you are looking at a guy that could be a single season rental. And most of all - he's injury prone. He's played more than 122 games in a season (minors + majors) twice in his career, 2009 and 2011. Even ignoring the early minor league years with fewer games played that is still the sign of a guy that gets a lot of nicks and bumps.
Are you willing to trade for a guy who may give you 110 games of decent at bats and nothing else then walk at the end of the season?
That's why I think the best the Nats could do is someone like Clay Rapada. Decent lefty arm, good LOOGY, not a free agent until 2017, but with his own performance issues and not young. Assuming Rapada reamains decent he could hold down the lefty in the pen role for the duration of the Nats initial playoff run. Unless Mike Morse has a full healthy season its likely you get more total value from Rapada at a fraction of the cost. However, for 2013, it would take a downer of a Morse year at the plate (like last year) for Rapada to match up to Morse (and if an injury happens to LaRoche or Werth...)
Would you make that deal?
The Nats probably want a decent young starter who could give them rotation depth and might develop into something more. Like a Ross Detwiler prior to 2012. Don't count on it. You might be able to get Jeff Neimann without having to pass a physical. He's got some years left before FA. He's also spent most of 2012 on the DL and at 29 isn't going to surprise anyone.
If you don't like that you might be looking at a pure pitching prospect. Anything from a "maybe this year" relief prospect who did OK in AA last year, to a long shot talent who may still be starting in A-ball. Forget Jake McGee, would a Nick Sawyer plus some other throw-ins do it for you?
If not, what type of player are you expecting?
Comedian!
Party Tent Sales Manager!
Professor of Photojournalism!
Red Wolf Biologist! (that does sound pretty cool)
DJ!
Michigan Car Accident Attorney!
Here's a question to you. It's my belief that Mike Morse won't fetch all that much in return. While it's completely true that a healthy Mike Morse will probably hit really well there are just too many questions / problems with him.
He does not field well. Yes, he was drafted as a short stop but that was a body type ago, and frankly it doesn't look like he was a good SS anyway. He's among the lowest players in value on the basepaths. Although the past couple years have quieted the fears, his strikeout to walk ratio still is going to give pause to teams. He's only signed for one more year so you are looking at a guy that could be a single season rental. And most of all - he's injury prone. He's played more than 122 games in a season (minors + majors) twice in his career, 2009 and 2011. Even ignoring the early minor league years with fewer games played that is still the sign of a guy that gets a lot of nicks and bumps.
Are you willing to trade for a guy who may give you 110 games of decent at bats and nothing else then walk at the end of the season?
That's why I think the best the Nats could do is someone like Clay Rapada. Decent lefty arm, good LOOGY, not a free agent until 2017, but with his own performance issues and not young. Assuming Rapada reamains decent he could hold down the lefty in the pen role for the duration of the Nats initial playoff run. Unless Mike Morse has a full healthy season its likely you get more total value from Rapada at a fraction of the cost. However, for 2013, it would take a downer of a Morse year at the plate (like last year) for Rapada to match up to Morse (and if an injury happens to LaRoche or Werth...)
Would you make that deal?
The Nats probably want a decent young starter who could give them rotation depth and might develop into something more. Like a Ross Detwiler prior to 2012. Don't count on it. You might be able to get Jeff Neimann without having to pass a physical. He's got some years left before FA. He's also spent most of 2012 on the DL and at 29 isn't going to surprise anyone.
If you don't like that you might be looking at a pure pitching prospect. Anything from a "maybe this year" relief prospect who did OK in AA last year, to a long shot talent who may still be starting in A-ball. Forget Jake McGee, would a Nick Sawyer plus some other throw-ins do it for you?
If not, what type of player are you expecting?
Friday, January 11, 2013
You can't just say things - FOOTBALL TALK
Sorry I couldn't ignore what has to be one of the most blatant - I'm just saying something without even concerning myself it it's true or not - things I've read in a long while.
This jabroni over at SI penned a little thing saying that the Patriots might be better suited to win a championship this year because they have a good running back. He notes that the Patriots have only been Top 5 in rushing attempts once since 2005 while passing a ton more (even though they've been sitting on some big leads). The problem is NOTHING HERE PASSES EVEN A MONKEY'S REVIEW OF THE STATS. (Ignoring the idiotic notion that two Super Bowl losses and a AFC Championship loss in seven years is somehow seen as having a fatal flaw)
Let's think about what he's implying : The Patriots won before because they ran more and they aren't winning now because they run less. Running = Winning*. Is any of that true?
*well actually he's saying "Balance = Winning" but you need to run in the Top 5 to have balance according to the premise of the article
The Patriots won before because they ran more
The Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003, and 2004. They ranked 8th, 12th and 5th in rushing attempts. So only one year did they meet the criteria set up by this guy.
"But Harper" you say "8th and 12th are still pretty good". Ok I agree but is it true that the Pats
aren't winning now because they run less
so they must have run a lot less in the last few years, right? Let's look in where they rank in rushing attempts since 2005.
18th, 7th, 9th, 4th, 10th, 10th, 17th
Hmmm 2006-2010 look as good as their Super Bowl years don't they? And they made the Super Bowl last year when they actually didn't run that much.
"Harper" you plead "you're missing the big picture. Winners RUN. Maybe the Pats ran ok but they still weren't Top 5. That's where the Champions are!" Well let's see, is it true? Does
Running = Winning.
Let's look at how the SB Champs rank in rushing attempts since 2005
1st,
"SEE TOLD YOU!"
18th, 8th, 9th, 7th, 20th, 22nd
"Oh, I'll be quiet now"
In fact in four out of the last seven years the Patriots RAN MORE THAN THE EVENTUAL CHAMPION. (and in the year of the first loss to the Giants they were 9th and the Giants were 8th - hardly compelling evidence.
The end result is that NOTHING HE SAID HOLDS ANY TRUTH. He thought of an idea "Steven Ridley makes the Pats a better title contender" but then didn't bother to figure out how exactly to prove that. Thing is there might be something there. He gives a sentence noting Ridley gained the most yards since Dillon 2004. Right behind Ridley is 2001's Antowain Smith. All Super Bowl years. He says balance but he doesn't look at rushing attempts to passing attempts or rush yards to pass yards. Maybe that would show something. Instead he just lead with some nonsense about rushing attempt rankings, which doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of a guy at lunch spending 15 minutes looking at pro-football-reference.com.
This jabroni over at SI penned a little thing saying that the Patriots might be better suited to win a championship this year because they have a good running back. He notes that the Patriots have only been Top 5 in rushing attempts once since 2005 while passing a ton more (even though they've been sitting on some big leads). The problem is NOTHING HERE PASSES EVEN A MONKEY'S REVIEW OF THE STATS. (Ignoring the idiotic notion that two Super Bowl losses and a AFC Championship loss in seven years is somehow seen as having a fatal flaw)
Let's think about what he's implying : The Patriots won before because they ran more and they aren't winning now because they run less. Running = Winning*. Is any of that true?
*well actually he's saying "Balance = Winning" but you need to run in the Top 5 to have balance according to the premise of the article
The Patriots won before because they ran more
The Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003, and 2004. They ranked 8th, 12th and 5th in rushing attempts. So only one year did they meet the criteria set up by this guy.
"But Harper" you say "8th and 12th are still pretty good". Ok I agree but is it true that the Pats
aren't winning now because they run less
so they must have run a lot less in the last few years, right? Let's look in where they rank in rushing attempts since 2005.
18th, 7th, 9th, 4th, 10th, 10th, 17th
Hmmm 2006-2010 look as good as their Super Bowl years don't they? And they made the Super Bowl last year when they actually didn't run that much.
"Harper" you plead "you're missing the big picture. Winners RUN. Maybe the Pats ran ok but they still weren't Top 5. That's where the Champions are!" Well let's see, is it true? Does
Running = Winning.
Let's look at how the SB Champs rank in rushing attempts since 2005
1st,
"SEE TOLD YOU!"
18th, 8th, 9th, 7th, 20th, 22nd
"Oh, I'll be quiet now"
In fact in four out of the last seven years the Patriots RAN MORE THAN THE EVENTUAL CHAMPION. (and in the year of the first loss to the Giants they were 9th and the Giants were 8th - hardly compelling evidence.
The end result is that NOTHING HE SAID HOLDS ANY TRUTH. He thought of an idea "Steven Ridley makes the Pats a better title contender" but then didn't bother to figure out how exactly to prove that. Thing is there might be something there. He gives a sentence noting Ridley gained the most yards since Dillon 2004. Right behind Ridley is 2001's Antowain Smith. All Super Bowl years. He says balance but he doesn't look at rushing attempts to passing attempts or rush yards to pass yards. Maybe that would show something. Instead he just lead with some nonsense about rushing attempt rankings, which doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of a guy at lunch spending 15 minutes looking at pro-football-reference.com.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Now you're just projecting
Zuckerman recently had a couple columns where he looked at player projections and the comments showed that people still don't quite understand how these things work.
The whole point of these fancy (and less fancy in the case of Marcel) projections is that they do a better job OVERALL than just some schlub guessing at the MLB next year. That's pretty much a given at this point. But we're talking projecting out hundreds of players and looking how far off you were on all combined. It does not mean they get every single person right or even close. It can never be that.
In some very specific areas it'll fall short. It can't predict break out seasons or surprise failures. It's not all that great projecting rookies. And coming back from injury is also a difficult and obviously an injury mid-season can't be predicted.
The latter two have a ton of variability. The first one literally comes out of nowhere. How can you project something that has no backing? "Oh I felt it coming" maybe, but like astrologers, you tend to remember the one feeling you got right and dismiss the 10 you didn't. Thing is, ask any of the people who do these projections and they'll admit this. They know the areas where they can't do a good job. All they are saying is that they do a better job projecting across the league than a person's guess.
For fun I took a look at the projections from 2012 to see how they compared to the results and see if anything can be learned.
SS Ian Desmond .292 / .335 / .511 .362 OBA
James - .268/.317/.394
ZiPS - .256 / .304 / .378
Marcel - .303 OBA
Comments - Break-out season. NO ONE saw it coming. If you say you did you are either probably lying or you've been saying "Ian will break out this year" every year for the last three and finally got it right.
2B Danny Espinosa .247 / .315 / .402 .313
James - .248/.329/.445
ZiPS - .229 / .309 / .400
Marcel - .329
Comments - A mixed bag, Zips underestimated the average, James overestimated the power, but combine them all and they pretty much have it right.
3B Ryan Zimmerman .282 / .346 / .478 .352
James - .291/.363/.486
ZiPS - .283 / .354 / .476
Marcel -.357
Comments - Zimmerman is who he is and everyone knows it. Interesting to note his OBP was lower in real life than across the board.
LF Michael Morse .291 / .321 / .470 .340
James -.291/.347/.505
ZiPS - .273 / .331 / .475
Marcel - .363
Comments - The only one who really underperformed compared to projections. His power was well down but as we know it was injury based.
1B Adam LaRoche .271 / .343 / .510 .361
James -.255/.333/.445
ZiPS - .238 / .317 / .405
Marcel - .317
Comments - WAY overperformed but how can you be surprised. When LaRoche last played he was injured and TERRIBLE. No one thought he'd come back with close to his best year ever. I mean he hadn't hit with this power since 2006. That doesn't usually happen.
RF Jayson Werth .300 / .387 / .440 .362
James -.259/.360/.451
ZiPS - .245 / .342 / .418
Marcel - .341
Comments - again an injury situation and again you can't blame the predictions. a 33 year old coming off an injury riddled year where he hit terribly wouldn't normally bounce all the way back. Werth did. But in an interesting way. It was ALL average-based. Usually its power that stays as you age and that's what the projections reflect.
C Wilson Ramos .265 / .354 / .398 .326
James -.267/.317/.431
ZiPS - .266 / .338 / .453
Marcel - .333
Comments - given injury and limited at bats it's hard to say these were off in any significant way. Looks like Ramos was getting on base more but hitting for less power than projected.
CF Roger Bernadina .291 / .372 / .405 .341
James -.261/.327/.399
ZiPS - .240 / .302 / .374
Marcel - .303 OBA
Comments - another breakout-esque year.
Stephen Strasburg 159 IP, 3.16 ERA
James -76, 2.78
ZiPS - 76, 2.85
Marcel -79, 3.02
Comments - big flaw in projections is IP in Tommy John comebacks. There aren't many and the IP varies wildly so you kind of have to ignore that. Otherwise not terribly off in my opinion.
Gio Gonzalez 199, 2.89
James -209, 3.89
ZiPS - 195, 3.55
Marcel -180, 3.60
Comments - break out year. If you weren't KC in my comments you didn't see accross the board improvement coming.
Jordan Zimmermann 195, 2.94
James -175, 3.46
ZiPS - 121, 3.65
Marcel -144, 3.56
Comments - here the one I think you want to fault projections the most. They default to regression (you'll do the same as you did before) over progression (you are learning and improving) The numbers ZNN put up in 2009 and 2010 were pretty bad. High 4.00s ERA. Now if it was just an average it would have been probably closer to 4.00 ERA in projections, but they do weight the most recent year heavier and factor in that at his age he could be peaking. Even then though you see it couldn't reach 2011. I think most Nats fans, while maybe not putting ZNN under 3.00, would have pegged him for a repeat performance (around 3.20 -a and yes I know the faults with ERA just bear with it for this exercise).
Edwin Jackson 189, 4.03
James -206, 3.98
ZiPS - 200, 3.79
Marcel - 180, 3.95
Comments - pretty close I think. Zips maybe liked him too much.
So what did we learn? The things where projections were way off were where we know they can fail, either surprise break-outs (Desmond, Bernie, Gonzo), injury comebacks (Werth, Laroche), or young players (ZNN). I think we have to ignore the first two and hope the Nats get what they want, a breakout from Danny and Ramos all the way back from injury. (Of course they are projecting Ramos all the way back so the surprise there is likely an underperformance) Are there any young players where the projections by design, might be selling short?
Yes. Desmond and Bryce. I'm kind of inclined to agree with the Desmond projections of a slight regression. Unlike ZNN he didn't have a couple partial seasons behind him. Ian's played a lot. But if you want to give him numbers close to last year, I think you can justify it. As for Bryce I'm pretty sure if you ask any of the projection people they would say Bryce will out do what they put out there (Then why put it out there? It's about sticking with a system. The minute you put feeling in there, no matter how strong, you start to add a lot of bias to the system. So you take your lumps on guys like Bryce that you are 95% sure are going to do better than what your system says). Everyone else stick with what they project.
Pitching wise Detwiler is the place to go for another ZNN performance. But understand that's a lot less likely for Ross than it was for ZNN. Det's 2012 was not as good as ZNNs 2011, and his starter ERA was actually close to 3.60. If he's truly learning he may only repeat that or beat it by a little. Going under 3.40 just doesn't seem likely to me. Ignore the IP with Strasburg and ZNN and put in what you think. With ZNN, given a full 2 seasons now in the books, his projections should be more spot on (if they look high it's because he got lucky a bit last year - we can get into that if you want). Haren is a total wild card.
I'm not sure were the projections will be wildly underestimating the Nats this year other than Bryce. They don't have guys coming back from terrible injury plagued seasons, there's only a handful of players that are young enough or haven't played enough to break out (Danny... Span, maybe) and you can't just say that'll happen. I guess they could be selling both Detwiler and Desmond a little short like they did ZNN in 2012, but there was better reasons for ZNN to repeat his performance than Detwiler or Desmond. Mostly I think these projections are going to work out to be pretty accurate.
But that's ok. You still have a pitching staff where your Top 3 guys are at least in the Top 15 in the NL. You still have an offense with no holes 1-7. It's still a division winning team they are projecting.
The whole point of these fancy (and less fancy in the case of Marcel) projections is that they do a better job OVERALL than just some schlub guessing at the MLB next year. That's pretty much a given at this point. But we're talking projecting out hundreds of players and looking how far off you were on all combined. It does not mean they get every single person right or even close. It can never be that.
In some very specific areas it'll fall short. It can't predict break out seasons or surprise failures. It's not all that great projecting rookies. And coming back from injury is also a difficult and obviously an injury mid-season can't be predicted.
The latter two have a ton of variability. The first one literally comes out of nowhere. How can you project something that has no backing? "Oh I felt it coming" maybe, but like astrologers, you tend to remember the one feeling you got right and dismiss the 10 you didn't. Thing is, ask any of the people who do these projections and they'll admit this. They know the areas where they can't do a good job. All they are saying is that they do a better job projecting across the league than a person's guess.
For fun I took a look at the projections from 2012 to see how they compared to the results and see if anything can be learned.
SS Ian Desmond .292 / .335 / .511 .362 OBA
James - .268/.317/.394
ZiPS - .256 / .304 / .378
Marcel - .303 OBA
Comments - Break-out season. NO ONE saw it coming. If you say you did you are either probably lying or you've been saying "Ian will break out this year" every year for the last three and finally got it right.
2B Danny Espinosa .247 / .315 / .402 .313
James - .248/.329/.445
ZiPS - .229 / .309 / .400
Marcel - .329
Comments - A mixed bag, Zips underestimated the average, James overestimated the power, but combine them all and they pretty much have it right.
3B Ryan Zimmerman .282 / .346 / .478 .352
James - .291/.363/.486
ZiPS - .283 / .354 / .476
Marcel -.357
Comments - Zimmerman is who he is and everyone knows it. Interesting to note his OBP was lower in real life than across the board.
LF Michael Morse .291 / .321 / .470 .340
James -.291/.347/.505
ZiPS - .273 / .331 / .475
Marcel - .363
Comments - The only one who really underperformed compared to projections. His power was well down but as we know it was injury based.
1B Adam LaRoche .271 / .343 / .510 .361
James -.255/.333/.445
ZiPS - .238 / .317 / .405
Marcel - .317
Comments - WAY overperformed but how can you be surprised. When LaRoche last played he was injured and TERRIBLE. No one thought he'd come back with close to his best year ever. I mean he hadn't hit with this power since 2006. That doesn't usually happen.
RF Jayson Werth .300 / .387 / .440 .362
James -.259/.360/.451
ZiPS - .245 / .342 / .418
Marcel - .341
Comments - again an injury situation and again you can't blame the predictions. a 33 year old coming off an injury riddled year where he hit terribly wouldn't normally bounce all the way back. Werth did. But in an interesting way. It was ALL average-based. Usually its power that stays as you age and that's what the projections reflect.
C Wilson Ramos .265 / .354 / .398 .326
James -.267/.317/.431
ZiPS - .266 / .338 / .453
Marcel - .333
Comments - given injury and limited at bats it's hard to say these were off in any significant way. Looks like Ramos was getting on base more but hitting for less power than projected.
CF Roger Bernadina .291 / .372 / .405 .341
James -.261/.327/.399
ZiPS - .240 / .302 / .374
Marcel - .303 OBA
Comments - another breakout-esque year.
Stephen Strasburg 159 IP, 3.16 ERA
James -76, 2.78
ZiPS - 76, 2.85
Marcel -79, 3.02
Comments - big flaw in projections is IP in Tommy John comebacks. There aren't many and the IP varies wildly so you kind of have to ignore that. Otherwise not terribly off in my opinion.
Gio Gonzalez 199, 2.89
James -209, 3.89
ZiPS - 195, 3.55
Marcel -180, 3.60
Comments - break out year. If you weren't KC in my comments you didn't see accross the board improvement coming.
Jordan Zimmermann 195, 2.94
James -175, 3.46
ZiPS - 121, 3.65
Marcel -144, 3.56
Comments - here the one I think you want to fault projections the most. They default to regression (you'll do the same as you did before) over progression (you are learning and improving) The numbers ZNN put up in 2009 and 2010 were pretty bad. High 4.00s ERA. Now if it was just an average it would have been probably closer to 4.00 ERA in projections, but they do weight the most recent year heavier and factor in that at his age he could be peaking. Even then though you see it couldn't reach 2011. I think most Nats fans, while maybe not putting ZNN under 3.00, would have pegged him for a repeat performance (around 3.20 -a and yes I know the faults with ERA just bear with it for this exercise).
Edwin Jackson 189, 4.03
James -206, 3.98
ZiPS - 200, 3.79
Marcel - 180, 3.95
Comments - pretty close I think. Zips maybe liked him too much.
So what did we learn? The things where projections were way off were where we know they can fail, either surprise break-outs (Desmond, Bernie, Gonzo), injury comebacks (Werth, Laroche), or young players (ZNN). I think we have to ignore the first two and hope the Nats get what they want, a breakout from Danny and Ramos all the way back from injury. (Of course they are projecting Ramos all the way back so the surprise there is likely an underperformance) Are there any young players where the projections by design, might be selling short?
Yes. Desmond and Bryce. I'm kind of inclined to agree with the Desmond projections of a slight regression. Unlike ZNN he didn't have a couple partial seasons behind him. Ian's played a lot. But if you want to give him numbers close to last year, I think you can justify it. As for Bryce I'm pretty sure if you ask any of the projection people they would say Bryce will out do what they put out there (Then why put it out there? It's about sticking with a system. The minute you put feeling in there, no matter how strong, you start to add a lot of bias to the system. So you take your lumps on guys like Bryce that you are 95% sure are going to do better than what your system says). Everyone else stick with what they project.
Pitching wise Detwiler is the place to go for another ZNN performance. But understand that's a lot less likely for Ross than it was for ZNN. Det's 2012 was not as good as ZNNs 2011, and his starter ERA was actually close to 3.60. If he's truly learning he may only repeat that or beat it by a little. Going under 3.40 just doesn't seem likely to me. Ignore the IP with Strasburg and ZNN and put in what you think. With ZNN, given a full 2 seasons now in the books, his projections should be more spot on (if they look high it's because he got lucky a bit last year - we can get into that if you want). Haren is a total wild card.
I'm not sure were the projections will be wildly underestimating the Nats this year other than Bryce. They don't have guys coming back from terrible injury plagued seasons, there's only a handful of players that are young enough or haven't played enough to break out (Danny... Span, maybe) and you can't just say that'll happen. I guess they could be selling both Detwiler and Desmond a little short like they did ZNN in 2012, but there was better reasons for ZNN to repeat his performance than Detwiler or Desmond. Mostly I think these projections are going to work out to be pretty accurate.
But that's ok. You still have a pitching staff where your Top 3 guys are at least in the Top 15 in the NL. You still have an offense with no holes 1-7. It's still a division winning team they are projecting.
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
LaRoche Signs; Trade Morse?
LaRoche will presumably sign the deal the Nats wanted all along. It's not what he wanted but interest in him was tepid for several reasons.
* Fun fact - expand out Moreland to a full season, factor in fielding and Texas conditions, etc etc and the difference between Moreland and LaRoche is 1-2 wins or EXACTLY WHAT THE RANGERS NEEDED TO MISS THE WILD CARD GAME LAST YEAR. When/if the Rangers fail to make the playoffs or win the West by a game or two I will laugh and laugh and laugh
So what about Morse? Presumably he'll be traded for a LH reliever or starting depth. Does he need to be?
The Nats can afford to keep him. Five million isn't onerous, and a good back-up is always nice to have. But that's probably not enough. Morse can only play corner OF and 1B, you really don't want to rotate out any of those three (LaRoche, Werth, Bryce) for many games so you are looking at a pretty limited set of at bats for Morse. Even if there was a minor injury the Nats are ok with the much cheaper options of Bernadina (for ok fielding and speed and slap hits) or Moore (for lefty power) for a few games at least. As a bench player he'd be a nice guy to have in case you need a hit, but his power was falling last year (possibly injury related so it might bounce back) and he Ks alot so he's a very specific type of bench hitter. He doesn't field well or run well so that value is nill.
Simply in terms of production, would he be worth more to the Nats in 2013 than a 6th starter or a 7th inning LOOGY? Almost certainly. But that's not the question. The question is given their relative contracts, would he be worth more? The answer to that, assuming the guys that the Nats get back are cheap and are signed through more than next year, would be no.
Morse will likely be gone next year with no room for him at the DC Inn. The Nats can save some money and probably get a little more value over the course of the respective players "Nat time" by trading him now. Rizzo tends to be an absolute value guy so I expect him to be dealt, screw the win in 2013 it may cost.
- His 2010 was mediocre and his injury plagued 2011 was terrible
- Repeat "Injury plagued 2011"
- He's 33, not a young chicken
- He was tied to draft pick compensation
* Fun fact - expand out Moreland to a full season, factor in fielding and Texas conditions, etc etc and the difference between Moreland and LaRoche is 1-2 wins or EXACTLY WHAT THE RANGERS NEEDED TO MISS THE WILD CARD GAME LAST YEAR. When/if the Rangers fail to make the playoffs or win the West by a game or two I will laugh and laugh and laugh
So what about Morse? Presumably he'll be traded for a LH reliever or starting depth. Does he need to be?
The Nats can afford to keep him. Five million isn't onerous, and a good back-up is always nice to have. But that's probably not enough. Morse can only play corner OF and 1B, you really don't want to rotate out any of those three (LaRoche, Werth, Bryce) for many games so you are looking at a pretty limited set of at bats for Morse. Even if there was a minor injury the Nats are ok with the much cheaper options of Bernadina (for ok fielding and speed and slap hits) or Moore (for lefty power) for a few games at least. As a bench player he'd be a nice guy to have in case you need a hit, but his power was falling last year (possibly injury related so it might bounce back) and he Ks alot so he's a very specific type of bench hitter. He doesn't field well or run well so that value is nill.
Simply in terms of production, would he be worth more to the Nats in 2013 than a 6th starter or a 7th inning LOOGY? Almost certainly. But that's not the question. The question is given their relative contracts, would he be worth more? The answer to that, assuming the guys that the Nats get back are cheap and are signed through more than next year, would be no.
Morse will likely be gone next year with no room for him at the DC Inn. The Nats can save some money and probably get a little more value over the course of the respective players "Nat time" by trading him now. Rizzo tends to be an absolute value guy so I expect him to be dealt, screw the win in 2013 it may cost.
Hall of Fame vote
I still stand by what I wrote 3 years ago.
I hope the deserving players, in my opinion, get in and undeserving ones stay out but in the end it doesn't matter who makes this arbitrary list of the best players of all time, even if it's decided by a bunch of baseball writers and it has its own fancy building.
I hope the deserving players, in my opinion, get in and undeserving ones stay out but in the end it doesn't matter who makes this arbitrary list of the best players of all time, even if it's decided by a bunch of baseball writers and it has its own fancy building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)