Gil Meche, Fluke or Development?

by Freneau on Dec 21, 2007 9:42 PM EST in Kansas City Royals News

I lack the technical skills to construct a fancy, and eye-saving table. So we'll do this the hard way:

Fluke, or Development?

ERA 2007: 3.67; Car: 4.44

ERA+ 2007: 128; Car: 101

Road ERA 2007: 3.47; Car: 4.98

WHIP 2007: 1.30; Car: 1.41

K/9 2007: 6.50; Car: 6.38

K/BB 2007: 2.52; Car: 1.72

G/F 2007: 1.36; Car: 1.03

Be advised, those career numbers include last season as well -- no time to calculate by hand otherwise, though I invite you to -- so in most cases the difference between Gil Meche '99-06 and Gil Meche '07, is even more pronounced.

So obviously, it was a career year, with Meche allowing fewer baserunners and using an upsurge in groundballs to control and limit big innings. (Meche's G/F ratio has never approached anything like what he did in 2007.) Meche's K-rate actually went down from 2006 to 2007, but was more than offset by a huge downturn in walks. In 2006 Meche walked 84 batters in 186.2 innings, in 2007, Meche walked only 62 men, while laboring through 216 innings. Thirty more innings, with 22 less BBs, nice. The improved control/approach and the increased ground-ball generation seems to suggest some legitimate strides. How large those strides are, I don't know.

More thoughts? Lets look at the clutch/leverage angle:

OPS allowed with 2-outs 2007: .702; Car: .740

OPS allowed with Men On 2007: .724; Car: .774

OPS allowed with RISP 2007: .653; Car: .684

OPS allowed with RISP/2-out 2007: .716; Car: .691

Eh, nothing too glaring. It looks like Meche was better in high-leverage situations in 2007, but he was better in all ways, so thats to be expected. Perhaps the gap is a wee bit larger than justified -- especially that OPS w/men on stat -- but, again, nothing too fluky.

Lets set the Meche ERA Over/Under for 2008 at 4.40. You going over or under?

Tweet Comment 52 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: 2008 royals, Gil Meche (P - KAN)

Comments

I am not at all sure how Meche lowered his ERA

by so much last year. Or how he so often managed to stay effective deep into games. Maybe it was the money? Maybe the huge bag of money gave him that extra bit of swagger and confidence? I am at least 10% serious here. I do expect some regression but since I don't really know what went so right for him in 2007 it is hard to know what might go wrong in 2008.

Anyway, even if he pitches 180 innings of 4.40 ERA baseball next year he will still be a well above average starter. And I would be surprised if he regressed even that far. So count me as betting under.

Something we all know to be true - If Meche's ERA rises up to 4.40 next year but he happens to have a record of 15-11 ESPN and much of the national media will declare it his "breakout year," justifying the contract.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 21, 2007 10:44 PM EST reply actions

Well under.

by doublestix on Dec 21, 2007 10:45 PM EST reply actions

under

I think Gil has it. Keepin' the faith, brotha.

David Howard was just the beginning. Hopefully TPJ is the end.

by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Dec 21, 2007 10:49 PM EST reply actions

4.40? Are you serious?

To put that at the over/under is wild pessimism. I'd be happy to take bets on the under. Anyone interested?

I appreciate people not being wildly optimistic about every Royals player, but shouldn't we at least attempt realism?

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 21, 2007 11:09 PM EST reply actions

i don't know if 4.40 is as pessimistic

as all that. I would be pretty conflicted if the over/under line at been 4.25.

FWIW, ZiPS predicted Meche would have a 4.55 ERA.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 21, 2007 11:19 PM EST up reply actions

ZIPS

And every other expert/system predicted in ERA north of 5 last year.

Just FYI! :-)

by doublestix on Dec 22, 2007 12:53 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah I remember those predictions.

So you see, when it comes to Meche, ZiPS is "due."

I hope ZiPS is way off this year also. The predictions for the whole Royals staff were ugly.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 22, 2007 1:21 AM EST up reply actions

re:

What I found downright hilarious with ZIPS predictions for Meche, was that his "optimistic" outcome for 2008 was WORSE than his 2007 season.

Even without my Royal Blue shades on, I'm betting many of our pitchers outperform what ZIPS projects, even if it's not by much.

by doublestix on Dec 22, 2007 1:46 AM EST up reply actions

a line at 4.40 is wildly unrealistic?

his career road era is damn near 5.00... and anyway, 4.40 isn't the end of the world

by Freneau on Dec 21, 2007 11:42 PM EST up reply actions

Yes, actually I think it is unrealistic

Wildy? Maybe that isn't the best adverb for how unrealistic 4.40 is. Perhaps "very" would be better.

Career ERA 4.44
Last 2 years ERA 4.06

If a pitcher's peak is in his late 20's, then should one be surprised when develops and improves up to and including that peak? Evaluating players, particularly developing and improving players, which Meche has been, should include both performance and scouting/tools. I think Moore and his scouts saw something in Meche that we can't see from just reading his stat lines. They saw the ability to be better than he has been. And McClure helped him a bit with his mechanics. Low and behold, they were right and he performed better. That doesn't look like a fluke to me.

Beyond that, I see a tendency from some fans to give negative interpretations to most things Royal. If a player had a bad year (Shealy, TPJ, Braun, etc.), then he sucks, dump him, bench him, send him to Omaha. If a player had a good year (Meche, Bannister, etc.), then it's a fluke, we'll never see that level of performance again. If Moore signs a player or makes a trade, then it was stupid or it just made the team older or it takes us in the wrong direction. Perhaps that's what years of bad teams does to some fans. But I don't think it makes for the best analysis.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 12:51 AM EST up reply actions

hmm... yea...

I take your point. I guess part of my thinking with Meche, aside from habitual negativity (which may bethe case) is that I just really don't know what he's good at as a pitcher... He's just solid all around.

He's almost like a quasi-Brad Radke or something, although, he isn't, because his control isn't at that level, yet. And he's not a true sinker/GB pitcher, he just kinda is. etc etc.

by Freneau on Dec 22, 2007 1:04 AM EST up reply actions

lol

I just went back through the MLBTR thread on the Bannister/Burgos deal. Almost fell out of my chair laughing, and now Burgos is out for 2008 as well! :)

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2006/12/bannister_for_b.html#comments

by doublestix on Dec 22, 2007 1:11 AM EST up reply actions

among guys who threw 70 innings last year

according to BP's Quality of opponents faced thingy... meche faced the 11th toughest competition

by Freneau on Dec 21, 2007 11:47 PM EST reply actions

Royals BABIP for pitchers

usually a solid indicator of who was a little lucky or cursed:

Bale- .393
Welly- .362
dotel- .356
musser- .346
gobble- .342
thomson- .342
odie- .341
davies- .338
braun- .333
JDLR- .329
greinke- .321
peralta- .318
elarton- .311
buckner- .308
meche- .301
ducky- .298
nunez- ..288
riske- .273
banny- .264
soria- .256
hochevar- .250

look out Banny...

by Freneau on Dec 21, 2007 11:54 PM EST reply actions

Wow, this says something horrible about

the Royals infield defense. Unless I am mistake league average for BABIP is around .290.

It is a head scratcher. Pena is good as SS and he was there every day. Grudz is very solid at 2B and started 100+ games. Scrappy McGload was a fine first baseman, and Gordon was not that bad at 3B at all.

It doesn't seem to add up to me.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 22, 2007 12:02 AM EST up reply actions

Where is Marbotty?

...and his quest for perfecting metrics and sabermetric analysis? He should be pointing out that there is a lot of debate about and evolving research on the extent to which pitchers have an impact on BABIP. While there is a significant luck factor, the picture is much more complicated than that. Of course we have found that knuckleballers and sinkerballers and any pitcher who can induce an inordinate number of groundballs will have a better BABIP. But there are other pitching skills which are not so easily testable which could directly affect BABIP.

Long story short, looking at Bannister's BABIP and immediately concluding that it was all a fluke is, in my opinion, very shallow analysis.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 12:56 AM EST up reply actions

yea...

but essentially no non-sinkerballers/knuckleballers have shown an ability to actually control that for long periods of time... so maybe banny pulled it off last season all on guile, but who knows if that will last

remember, everyone thought maddux was doing that as well, but it turned out that year to year he was just as variable...

i think banny has proven he can be useful, but i don't think he's not deserving of skepticism

by Freneau on Dec 22, 2007 1:09 AM EST up reply actions

not coincidentally

a lot of those high #s are from guys who didnt pitch much with teh Royals ( I set it at 10 IP I think)

by Freneau on Dec 22, 2007 1:05 AM EST up reply actions

Meche

I believe logical baseball fans tend to underestimate the emotional and psychological sides of a player's game. I think Mechey heard what everybody said about him during last offseason, and I think it pissed him off. If The Matrix trilogy taught us anything, it's that every hero must have a villain (or was it vice versa?)... and I think Gil found a real motivator in the voices of jerks like the Toronto GM and every other baseball "guru" that decried his mediocrity.

Oh, and the logical baseball fan in me also believes that McClure was really onto something when he corrected Meche's footwork - remember reading all those stories about his toe (and not his heel) touching the ground first in his delivery? I think it made a big difference in the consistency of Gil's approach to the plate.

Join the movement: everything Joel says is true and smart.

by Gordon Roy on Dec 22, 2007 12:16 AM EST reply actions

A Hard Hit

Liner has a better chance of falling in for a hit than anything but a HR. Pitchers who leave the ball over the plate up in the zone give up more liners. This is one reason for a high BABIP, but I'm sure luck plays into it, more for some than others.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Dec 22, 2007 12:22 AM EST reply actions

When I looked at this whole matter

I remember being surprised at how little variation there was between players in terms of hitting line drives. Almost all players fall between 18 and 21 percent. And the most frustrating part of it all was that line drive percentage did not correlate well with high batting average.

My "throw the hands in the air and surrender" conclusion was that increasing line drive percentages does not seem to be the path to a high batting average.

Line drives are best, but most players hit the same percentage of line drives.

Fly balls are twice as good as ground balls in terms of runs produced. So the key seems to be making contact and getting the ball up.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 22, 2007 1:15 AM EST up reply actions

What Is The Definition

Of a line drive? Obviously, a ball that touches the ground on the infield is not one, but a hard hit ball that hits the ground at the edge of the infield might as well be. Conversely, a hard hit ball that goes more than ,say, 10 to 15 feet into the air in its arc is also not really a liner, but what is it called for statistical purposes? As with virtually all stats, subjective classification of data can skew the results.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Dec 22, 2007 2:26 AM EST up reply actions

Phil,

I don't know what the definition of line drive is either. I just used the stats that Hardball Times collects. I wondered about this same question.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 22, 2007 9:21 PM EST up reply actions

Bill James

predicts Meche's 2008 stats as : 10-13 with a ERA of 4.33

by gordonrules on Dec 22, 2007 1:08 AM EST reply actions

ill take the under...

i think he goes under a 4.00 too...

by rockchalk on Dec 22, 2007 1:11 AM EST reply actions

Count me under as well.

by Eppenweb on Dec 22, 2007 1:30 AM EST reply actions

I'll say under.

How about 3.92? That's what I've got. Dude has the skill. Dude has the heart. And with one of, if not one of the best, pitching coaches in the league doesn't hurt him at all.

by royaldaddy on Dec 22, 2007 2:43 AM EST reply actions

Under, And I'm

Hoping we'll see some impressive improvement from Davies with a year of McClure's guidance.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Dec 22, 2007 4:17 AM EST reply actions

About BABIP

Bale- .393
Welly- .362
dotel- .356
musser- .346
gobble- .342
thomson- .342
odie- .341
davies- .338
braun- .333
JDLR- .329
greinke- .321
peralta- .318
elarton- .311
buckner- .308
meche- .301
ducky- .298
nunez- ..288
riske- .273
banny- .264
soria- .256
hochevar- .250

For those of you who think that Bannister's 2007 BABIP means he was very lucky and he should do considerably worse in 2008, do you that this holds true for all Royals pitchers? With .290 being neutral "luck" that means Bannister was lucky to the tune of about .26 ob BABIP. That means that Meche was unlucky by .11, JDLR was unlucky by .39 and Davies was unlucky by a whopping .48. So, do you expect better things for Meche next year? Do you expect much better results for JDLR and Davies considering how horribly lucky they are. If we're going by BABIP, it cuts both ways.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 11:20 AM EST reply actions

Expected BABIP

Expected BABIP is a pitcher's LD% + .120. For Meche, whose LD% last year was 17.8% (or .178), his expected BABIP would have been .298. Thus, Meche, with an actual BABIP of .301, was right where it should have been. The bigger concern with Meche is his career year BB/9 and GB%, which as noted above are out of line with the rest of his career. He started throwing his two-seam more in 2006, so there is some explanation for the increased GB% the last two years, but a moderate regression (perhaps to his 2006 rate) should not surprise anyone. His 2007 walk rate was a full walk below his career average and more than that for his two prior years. Again, a moderate regression (but still a good bit below his career rate) should not surprise anyone either.

Bannister, however, was extremely lucky. His LD% was 19.2%, so his expected BABIP was .312, nearly a .050 difference with his actual BABIP of .264. That screams fluke.

Davies (21% LD%) was right about where he should have been too (.330 expected BABIP v. .338 actual BABIP).

by Gopherballs on Dec 22, 2007 7:20 PM EST up reply actions

An evolving area of baseball research

DIPS and everything that has grown from it is very much an evolving area of baseball research. Every year, the theory is augmented and frequently what we "know" changes. So I don't think it is quite correct to say "Expected BABIP is a pitcher's LD% + .120." I'm sure you read a study or an article which posited this and it undoubtedly had some statistical support. But we should not treat it like revealed truth. There is a great deal of debate in the sabermetric community about DIPS, BABIP and the whole issue of how much a pitcher affects what happens to balls put in play. While there is clearly a good deal of validity to Voros McCracken's original hypothesis, it has been significantly limited over the past several years. We still don't know how much pitchers have to do with BABIP, and which pitchers have which effects and under which circumstances. How much do pitchers have control over ground balls, line drives and fly balls? With all this debate ongoing, we shouldn't treat "exp. BABIP = LD% + .120" as revealed truth.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 8:39 PM EST up reply actions

Quantum Mechanics Has Been

Categorized as a religion in some circles, as is baseball. Einstein, in his search for a "unified field theory", insisted "God does not roll dice." Baseball, being far more complex than the true nature of the universe, may be, and indeed appears to be, ruled by a god whose mantra is "7 come 11, baby needs new shoes!" BABIP as relates to a pitcher's (or hitter's) true effectiveness? Please.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Dec 22, 2007 9:05 PM EST up reply actions

It is tempting

When one reads an article about some baseball metric or someone at BP making reference to some formula, it is tempting to think "ok this is it, the researchers have figured it out, game over." I have certainly been guilty of that at times. Some areas of baseball research are more settled and certainly more agreed to. DIPS and the meaning of BABIP are certainly not such an area.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 9:13 PM EST up reply actions

"Expected BABIP" is a term of art

"Expected BABIP" is a statistical metric (LD% + .120) derived by THT's Dave Studeman, and his research supporting the general formula has been generally accepted. Check out the past The Hardball Times annuals. I am not aware of any real controversy over the use of it.

While a great analytical tool, I don't think anyone, Studeman included, would attempt to hold it (or any metric) out a "revealed truth" (although he might be flattered).

by Gopherballs on Dec 22, 2007 9:34 PM EST up reply actions

Controversy

There is a great deal of controversy and debate about the meaning of BABIP and the effect that pitchers have on balls put in play. The whole "LD% + .120" formula includes a number of highly debatable assumptions about the effect that pitchers have on ground balls, fly balls and line drives. If this formula is "generally accepted" then why is it not used or referenced by Baseball Prospectus? I doubt Hardball Times has proprietary rights over the constant .120. I hope you are familiar with the great deal of debate and disagreement in the sabermetric community about DIPS, BABIP and all of their various spawn.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 9:41 PM EST up reply actions

BP does reference it

Instead of gnashing your teeth, why not try reading the work of Studeman and others who have used it?

by Gopherballs on Dec 22, 2007 9:50 PM EST up reply actions

Since you've jumped on the condescension train

Why not try going beyond what you read at Hardball Times? Why not recognize that baseball researches haven't yet figured out the effect that pitchers have on balls in play? And while you're at it, why not stop regurgitating every formula you stumble across and treating someone's theory as fact?

I was merely trying to point out the current limitations of baseball research and agreement with regard to this area of study. If you don't know that such limitations and disagreements exist, I would suggest that you broaden your reading on the subject.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 9:59 PM EST up reply actions

+1

Formulas a good and all, but they shouldn't be used in a vacuum.

by doublestix on Dec 22, 2007 10:24 PM EST up reply actions

do you know where you can get LD #s?

by Freneau on Dec 22, 2007 9:12 PM EST up reply actions

hardballtimes.com

by Gopherballs on Dec 22, 2007 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

Gil Meche, a pitcher coming into his own

Meche's stat line looks like a pitcher improving into his peak years:

2005 ERA+ 82
2006 ERA+ 99
2007 ERA+ 128

One may argue that there wasn't constant improvement in that his earlier seasons' ERA+ were 106, 121, 91 and 94. But those were at ages 20, 21, 24 and 25. He was a young, talented pitcher still figuring out how to pitch. After some early success and injuries, AL hitters were more comfortable with him and "figured him out" to some degree. So, he had to go beyond just relying on his stuff and learn how to pitch. As many good pitchers do, I think he has learned how to pitch and improved through ages 26, 27 and 28.

I think Will was right when he said that Meche doesn't do anything great, but he does many things well. He has a good but not great strikeout rate, he has good control (considerably improved in 2007) and a good, deep pitch complement which has clearly learned how to use to its best advantage. That sounds like the profile of a good #2 starting pitcher.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 3:16 PM EST reply actions

So everyone's on board for the under...

unless I'm missing someone

by Freneau on Dec 22, 2007 4:38 PM EST reply actions

The over/under

If you set it somewhere in the 4.00-4.20 range, you'd get a greater diversity of opinion.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 5:05 PM EST up reply actions

yea...

well, its Decemeber, we'll roll with it for awhile

by Freneau on Dec 22, 2007 9:12 PM EST up reply actions

Over/Under

I say under. Gil looks like he finally has things coming together. I look for more of the same going forward.

BTW, kinda amusing. Brian Schneider's wife - not bad.

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2007/12/22/things-that-make-you-go-huh/

by ET90210 on Dec 22, 2007 6:14 PM EST reply actions

Is it just me?

...or does that woman appear to have a freakishly small head?

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 22, 2007 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

i hope there's an alternative universe

where brian schiender (sp... no effort) has to get by like the rest of us

by Freneau on Dec 22, 2007 9:14 PM EST up reply actions

Under

I'm a Gil Meche believer. While he won't be posting any sub 3 ERA seasons in the near future, I do not think he'll go above 4.10 next season.

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Dec 22, 2007 8:18 PM EST reply actions

All-Overpaid Team

Pretty solid list, but I might make a few changes. I'm sure we all have a few.

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2007/12/23/the-all-overpaid-team/

by ET90210 on Dec 23, 2007 4:22 PM EST reply actions

Can we move for a new over/under?

It'd be a lot more interesting to see the wagers with, say, a 110 ERA+ type o/u.

It's fine to disagree with anything I type, but I'm currently running on energy drinks. Be warned.

by NHZ on Dec 26, 2007 8:43 AM EST reply actions

That's about a 4.25 ERA

I'll take the under. I think Meche has developed into a solid #2 starting pitcher and he'll have an ERA around 4.00.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 26, 2007 8:51 AM EST up reply actions

Gil's ERA May

Regress, but I think his all-important W/L record will improve dramatically. The combination of improved offense (and perhaps defense) with a regression to mean from Meche's absurd bad luck could produce an 18-10 year and a spot on the All-Star team.

I'm not getting older....oh, wait, yes I am....and slower.... and weaker. God, this is great!

by philofthenorth on Dec 27, 2007 4:08 PM EST up reply actions