Soria as closer: leverage and his "stuff"

by Sean O Se on Mar 19, 2008 1:31 AM EDT Comment 32 comments

A great post at Rany on why Soria would likely be especially valuable as a starter.

http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2008/03/reason-9-closer.html

Closers have the bonus "leverage" of working in swing innings, and thus are 1.5 to 2 times as valuable per-inning as starters. But starters still eat up innings and set the tone of games.

The typical closer increases in ERA 25% when moved to the rotation. But Soria might do better than this. He has great control, and a tremendously low batting-average-against. Furthermore, his low isolated-power-against also bodes well for getting out of jams when pitching 6 innings--avoiding the 3-run homer.

Rany notes that even if his "real skill level" is closer to 3.0 ERA than 2.48, treating the 25% increase as an upper bound (due to his good control) would put him at 3.75 ERA, making him on par with Meche and Banny.

The Rany arguments make it almost unthinkable that he won't be moved, I should think.

http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Great stuff

I totally agree with him.

It is amazing Soria was left available. I'm not the best scout in the world by any stretch, but when I first saw Soria pitch, I said "that guy has amazing command and great stuff." Definitely not a guy I would have left unprotected if I had the chance.

I think he could easily be a 3.50 - 3.80 ERA guy as a starter. Hope to see it next year.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 19, 2008 11:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Or, if his true ability really is 2.50 ERA

as a reliever, then we might be looking at a future Cy Young candidate a few years from now, because that would translate into an ERA around 3.1

by loyal2s dad on Mar 19, 2008 12:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hard to argue with that

If his ERA is going to be even better than 3.1, he would have the best ERA in the American League last year, arguably making him quite a bit better than Johann. But I thought that ERA was a flawed stat?

Taking this one step further, if closers are only worth 1.5-2 times what a starter is (per inning), and closers work an average of 70 innings and your 5th starter works 135 innings, aren't your 5th starters worth more than your closers? So why do clubs pay a FA closer so much more than a FA 5th starter?

The next step after this are the questions; are baseball team owners such flawed businessmen that they don't realize that the more efficiently they run their business, the more money they make? and, if some of them are poor businessman (that's a given), are all 30?

Yoda

by Yoda on Mar 19, 2008 12:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

5th starters vs. closers

"Taking this one step further, if closers are only worth 1.5-2 times what a starter is (per inning), and closers work an average of 70 innings and your 5th starter works 135 innings, aren't your 5th starters worth more than your closers? So why do clubs pay a FA closer so much more than a FA 5th starter? "

5th starters IMO are more important than closers. And a few teams, usually the larger market clubs, do pay their fifth starters are much as or more than their closers.

But its really hard to find five starters who are valuable. Heck, its hard to find three good starters, let alone five.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 19, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My line of reasoning was flawed

because there are too few examples to look at. The picture that came into my mind was Kyle Lohse at $4 mil for one year as opposed to Cordero for $12 mil per year for 4 years. Looking around the majors it's hard to find anyone who is an "established" 5th starter. What you see are guys who used to be (possibly) 3rd starters (ex. Mussina) or are young players (ex. Kennedy) who will either have higher rotation spots later in their career or will not have a spot. Maybe Silva could hold that spot. But Bavasi is so messed up that he fits under my definition of bad businessman.

Yoda

by Yoda on Mar 19, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soria's value

If Soria is anywhere near as good as a starter as many people think he would be, he wouldn't be a #5 starter and he wouldn't get only 135 innings per year. If he's managing a 4.00 ERA (with commensurate peripherals), then he won't be the 5th starter who gets skipped over. He'll be starting every fifth day and giving the Royals as many innings as he can handle. So the #5 starter vs. closer comparison isn't really relevant to Soria.

Of course Soria wouldn't be ready to be a full-time starter right now. They would have to stretch out his innings over the next 2-3 years to get him safely to a point where he can handle 200 innings.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 19, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you can find a good fifth starter

If you have four really good starting pitchers, and you had the option of signing either a fifth good starter, or a good closer, I would take the starter.

But I'm guessing I'm in the minority, and that a lot of GMs would pick the closer. I think there is still a tendency to wildly overvalue the closer's role. So I think I understand the point you were trying to make.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 19, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

GM's generally get paid to think conservatively

I think you're right on the money with your observation...

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Mar 19, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we're thinking of nonconservative GMs

Billy Beane would fit the bill. I don't think he views the closer's role in much esteem and feels he can always trade or find somebody within the org that will work in that spot. On the other hand it is hard to see what kind of relative value he puts on it if everyone's paycheque is tiny.

Personally, I would like to see Soria start, but not at the expense of opening a hole in another part of the team. Nothing more disheartening to a fan than to see your team fight and struggle to get ahead and stay ahead of the other team for 8 innings and watch the closer give it up in the 9th.

Yoda

by Yoda on Mar 19, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soria

While the Royals should definitely give Soria an audition in the rotation at some point, the one thing Rany did not directly mention as a potential concern is that he likely will lose velocity and strikeouts as a starter. His fastball in the pen averages just under 92 MPH, which is about major league average for all pitchers. As a starter, when he cannot throw with maximum effort for every pitch, he is likely to lose about 2 MPH off his fastball.

Now, as Rany noted, the best attributes of Soria's fastball are its movement (it is really a cutter) and its control, but a loss in velocity will have some impact, as it will be easier for hitters to catch up with it. Reduced velocity usually correlates with a dip in K/9 rates and a bump in HR/9 rates. I do not think this is a red flag as it would be for someone who lacks Soria's control and movement, but it should temper expectations that his outstanding performance in the bullpen would automatically transfer to the rotation.

The Royals reluctance to move him now also makes some sense, considering that with Greinke in the rotation and Riske gone, Soria is the only relief ace in the pen for high leverage situations in the late innings.

Overall, it is certainly worth giving Soria a look in the rotation for the reasons mentioned in the article and previously on this site.

by Gopherballs on Mar 19, 2008 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm assuming

that he has been able to maintain his stuff as a starter in the Mexican league already. Don't know if that's true, but I'm sure the Royals already know one way or the other, and if they do eventually move him, rest assured they will have considered this.

From a scouting perspective, just watching him throw, he looks nothing at all like a max-effort guy, on the contrary, he looks like he is playing a leisurely game of catch to me. Doesn't that suggest that he most likely could be able to maintain his stuff over a 7 inning period?

by loyal2s dad on Mar 19, 2008 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

He really isn't a maximum effort guy who is putting everything behind every fastball. His fastball sits in the low-90's. It isn't going to drop into the high-80's as a starter. Will it lose any velocity? Probably. But for a pitcher like Soria, it probably means 1 mph. And for Soria, that 1 mph isn't a very big deal. He doesn't succeed by blowing hitters away with his velocity. He succeeds with movement, location and by mixing up his pitches. He really is the model of a young pitcher who would do well as a starter. He actually fits the starter mold better than the closer mold.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 19, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you look at Mike Fast's raw data for Soria

25% of his fastballs are already in the high 80s. That number is going to approach 50% if his average velocity dips into the 90-91 range. As a reliever, he is more likely to get away with a slower pitch, considering he would be averaging only two or three of the slower fastballs per outing. If the frequency jumps to nearly 50% of his pitches and his number of pitches increases six or seven fold per outing (105 pitches instead of 15), opposing hitters are going to see 25+ slower fastballs (and it only takes one or two to ruin an outing).

But, again, the point is not that Soria will struggle as a starter, just that no one should expect the same level of effectiveness.

by Gopherballs on Mar 19, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not really

Virtually all relievers -- not just max effort guys -- lose about 2 MPH in the rotation. Pitchers do not maintain the same consistency when throwing 17 pitches per outing versus 105. 2 MPH may not sound like much, but the difference in K and HR rates are very noticeable. Some of the 92 MPH fastballs Soria got past hitters in relief will become 90 MPH fastballs that hitters can at least foul off.

Again, this is not to say that Soria should not get a tryout as a starter (he should), or that he will bomb as a starter (he should not), just that his bullpen performance should not automatically translate to the rotation. And the 25% referenced in the article is an average, not a floor.

by Gopherballs on Mar 19, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Decreasing velocity

While every pitcher should expect some decrease in velocity when going from relief pitching to starting pitching, I don't think every pitcher's velocity decreases by the same amount. I would think that higher velocity pitchers would lose more than lower velocity pitchers. I think the relationship is more exponential than linear.

It's a lot like losing weight. If you've got two people on the same diet and exercise regimen, with one being 300 lbs. and the other being 200 lbs., the 300 lb. person is going to lose more weight in a month than the 200 lb. person, because he has more weight to lose.

I think the closer your fastball is to average velocity, the less velocity you are going to lose as a starting pitcher.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 19, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Although that non-linear thinking

would probably also apply to the hitter. For example, a fastball that is 80 mph is easier to hit than a 100 mph fastball by a factor of much more than 20%.

Yoda

by Yoda on Mar 19, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure the data supports that

For example, Shawn Chacon has a 3-4 MPH difference and he does not throw as hard as Soria.

by Gopherballs on Mar 19, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The data

I'm not sure if the data supports it at all. We're both just espousing theories here. It doesn't appear that either of us have much data. Clearly your velocity is going to go down when you go from the bullpen to the rotation. But by how much? And is the difference roughly equal for all pitchers? I'd love to see a large sample of data on this, but it doesn't appear that either of us have that.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 19, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I am looking at actual pitching data

Pick any handful of pitchers who switched between roles and they consistenly show a difference of around 2 MPH. Greinke had about a 2 MPH difference. Lenny DiNardo lost 3-4 MPH moving from the pen to the rotation. Braden Looper lost 3 MPH moving to the rotation. Chad Gaudin, Scott Downs, Shaun Marcum, Ryan Franklin, Brett Tomko, and Dustin Mosely had around a 2 MPH difference. The one outlier I could find was Fausto Carmona, whose sinker only had about a 1 MPH difference.

by Gopherballs on Mar 20, 2008 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This discussion is great and all...

but the 2-3 mph difference is really not going to make much of a difference. These aren't little leaguers at the plate hitting, these guys can hit a 92-93 mph fastball just as well as a 90-91 mph fastball. If you have good secondary pitches and are able to switch speeds well, it makes the drop in velocity a mute point. I, for one, would rather face someone throwing harder rather than softer because the ball is going to come off the bat faster.

by MileHighKCfan on Mar 20, 2008 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, 2-3 MPH does make a difference

Take a look at the performances of starters who have lost 2-3 MPH off their fastball over the last couple years -- Doug Davis, Barry Zito, Casey Fossum, Jason Jennings, Livan Hernandez, Jose Contreras. They see a drop in their K rate, an increase in their HR rate, or both. More velocity essentially "slows" the hitter's bat because it reduces the time for him to get the bat around on a pitch. Less velocity does the opposite. Sure, for hitters with hall of fame level bat speed and control like Albert Pujols or Ichiro Suzuki, 2-3 MPH does not matter much, but for the average MLB hitter (and by definition, half of MLB hitters are below average), it certainly does.

And, again, Soria is still a good bet to become an effective starter, but a drop in velocity would not be a moot point.

by Gopherballs on Mar 20, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a moot point

Just minimally important. Everyone realizes that he would likely be less effective as a SP, because essentially ever pitcher is. ERA would go up, K/9 would go down. That's a given.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 20, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

You didn't take into account the fact that the 300 pound guy is 7' tall and athletically built, while the 200 pound guy is as round as he is tall! So, the natural potential of the short fat guy to lose weight would be higher than the tall skinny guy...

My point is that it is all going to be very dependent on the person. I don't think Soria is pitching MaxEf, so I don't think you see much drop. And it's not like his velocity was the most important part of his pitching. I mean, you guys are spouting off about 1 mph, 2-3 mph, whatever, but don't you think that MLB hitters are going to tee off on 92-93 mph if it's down the pipe? If he's locating, changing speeds, and mixing up pitches, he'll be fine even if he drops to 89-91 mph on 50% of his fastball (which I doubt happens).

Sorry about piping up on this. I'm like a junkie that got a minor score, but it was of so low quality that it just pissed me off... (i.e., No real baseball is making me crazy!)

by KC Chris on Mar 19, 2008 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he saves between 40 and 50 games

this season I will be happy with him as a closer. Don't mess with a good thing.

Be loyal, Be Brave, Be Free.

by hardyguy on Mar 21, 2008 1:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What Is The

Average win total for a team that has a 45 save closer? Surely this stat exists.

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

by philofthenorth on Mar 21, 2008 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's the argument about?

Isn't the increase in HR/9 and decrease in K/9 and velocity accounted for in the projected-ERA translation between starters and relievers? Part of the reason that pitchers project higher ERAs as starters is because of the reduced velocity.

by Billex Gordler on Mar 22, 2008 10:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Nate Silver article

on the ERA translation surprisingly does not mention velocity as one of the factors.

by Gopherballs on Mar 22, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right, but

The effect of any change in velocity is still embedded in the numbers. I can't remember this article specifically, but he created the translation based on historical numbers, right? If so, there's no way NOT to include the effects of velocity. It's all there.

Now it's possible that Soria will out- or underperform his translation because of his ability or lack thereof to maintain his velocity, but we have to assume that any velocity change is included in the translated numbers.

by Billex Gordler on Mar 22, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Probably all of Soria's stats would be worse as a SP than as a RP, because that is true of essentially every pitcher. The only question is to what degree he would be worse. His velocity would go down some overall, especially in late innings. Hitters would get to see all of his pitches and multiple times during a game.

So, these are all givens. But, even though he would be worse as a starter, he would still likely benefit the team more.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 22, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, it is one of the components

but it was surprising no one had mentioned that particular component. If you look at the individual components, you should get a better idea of a move to the rotation would affect a specific pitcher (as mentioned above, the 25% is an average, not a floor or ceiling).

In Soria's case, velocity deserved a mention as a concern (but not a red flag) because his fastball velocity is already average around 92 MPH. It is one of the reasons why a proper analysis involves more than just automatically applying the 25% to his ERA last year and calling a move to the rotation a slam dunk.

I do not think anyone really disagrees with that basic premise, yet we were still treated to arguments doubting Soria would lose any velocity, doubting that there is any drop in velocity when a pitcher moves to the rotation, making up a theory that the available data does not support, doubting that data exists on how much velocity pitchers lose, and suggesting that more velocity actually helps the hitter.

by Gopherballs on Mar 22, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The open question

The open question that we're trying to figure out is by how much Soria's effectiveness would decrease if he went to the rotation. I don't think anyone is doubting that he'd be worse as a starter. The question is...how much worse? Among other things, how much would his velocity go down? I'd certainly like to see a significant sample of data and not just a handful of cherry picked pieces of evidence. There are a lot of variables here.

It is one of the reasons why a proper analysis involves more than just automatically applying the 25% to his ERA last year and calling a move to the rotation a slam dunk.

Did anybody do that? Anybody at all? Talk about a straw man. We are just discussing the degree of change he would face going to the rotation. And considering that a really liberal estimate of that decline would be for him to go to a 4.50 ERA (with peripherals at that level as well) and the fact that 180+ innings of that kind of pitching is worth more than 80 innings as a closer (and the moderate leverage that those innings entail), it appears to look like a slam dunk.

I know you prefer to critique the opinions of others more than actually providing opinions of your own, but you'd have to agree that the available data and sensible analysis leads one to the conclusion that it is very likely that he'd be more beneficial to the team as a starter than as a closer.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Mar 23, 2008 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs