Royal Holes
While reading some posts and comments about possible trades the Royals could make, I started pondering what the real holes are on this team which need to be filled (yes, I know that's what she said). Before I get into this, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about holes that should necessarily filled during the 2008 season and especially not for a mythical playoff push. These are holes on the 2009 team (and perhaps beyond) which need to be filled for the team to either get into contention or at least closer to it.
First, I'll start with the parts of the team which are NOT HOLES:
Starting Pitching - The Royals have a good top four in Greinke, Meche, Bannister and Hochevar. There is also quality depth for the near future in Davies, Rosa, Cortes and Pimentel. While I wouldn't expect any of that latter group to dominate in 2009, I'm confident that at least one of those pitchers would make a more than competent fifth starter. And then there's the possibility of Soria becoming a starter which could turn the rotation from good into great.
Relief Pitching - As with the starting pitching, the Royals relief corps has four very good pitchers in Soria, Ramirez, Nunez and Mahay. Any bullpen which goes four deep with good pitchers is a pretty damned good bullpen. And, despite the fact that some have struggled this year, there are some other decent pieces for the front end of the bullpen in Gobble, Yabuta and Peralta. The minors provides additional MLB-ready depth for 2009 in Neal Musser and Ryan Braun. Also, Tejeda and Bale could possibly contribute next year. And, if some of the top pitching prospects aren't ready to start in the majors, they could contribute out of the bullpen.
Long story short, the Royals pitching staff is stocked for the foreseeable future. Pitching is the area of depth from which the Royals could trade, not an area they need to trade for.
Catcher - John Buck has settled in as a league average catcher. While I'd love for the Royals to have an above average catcher (and to be above average at every position), this can't be considered a hole on this team. When there are other positions which are below average, upgrading a position where you have an average player can't be a high priority.
Second Base - Mark Grudzielanek has manned this position more than ably for the past three years. He has consistently provided the Royals above average hitting for the position as well as good defense. But his time with the Royals should be over either by the trade deadline or the end of the season. The Royals now have two potential second basemen of the future in Alberto Callaspo and Mike Aviles. Both project to fairly well for middle IFers with more than sufficient defense.
Third Base - Without getting into a long and potentially acrimonious discussion of the future of Alex Gordon, let's just say that he is and will be at least a league average 3B. No hole here.
Centerfield - This year, David DeJesus has done one of two things: either 1) shown that 2007 was a flukey down year and returned to a plateau of 2005-06, or 2) shown that 2007 was a flukey down year and had a breakout, taking his game to a higher level. In either case, he's an above average CFer both offensively and defensively.
Left Field - In the offseason, Dayton Moore wanted some corner OF power and signed Jose Guillen. Guillen has provided that and will be a fixture in the middle of the lineup at least through 2009.
And now to the HOLES:
First base/Designated Hitter - The Royals have a good, young, cheap 1B/DH in Billy Butler. He needs a partner who can provide at least league average production for those positions. Ross Gload isn't it. Even if his first three months of 2008 are just a slump, he's a below average catcher. With his poor 2008 season so far, we have to face the very real possibility that what we're seeing is a precipitous decline in his skills and, therefore, performance. He's a slap hitter and good defender. That might be enough for a middle IFer. That is woefully insufficient for a 1B/DH.
Shortstop - All acrimony and emotion aside, Tony Pena Jr. has shown that he is not a a major league baseball player. Mike Aviles is a below average defensive SS, but if he can be counted on to have an OPS roughly in the high .700's, that would be fine for the position. But I don't think we can count on that. I'm not counting him out at this point, but the track record for SS's following Aviles's carer path is very poor. What would be ideal is for the Royals to acquire a legitimate shortstop and then let Aviles and Callaspo compete for or share the second base position. Or, some combination of those three players could rotate through shortstop and second base. While it wouldn't be the end of the world, I'm not comfortable with standing pat with Aviles and Callaspo as the only options for SS and 2B.
Right Field - I had high hopes for Mark Teahen. But the power just hasn't come back. I still think he can and will be a .285/.360/.425 player for several years, but a .785 OPS for a corner OFer isn't enough. He might be able to handle CF, where those numbers would be acceptable, but I don't think Moore and Hillman would allow that to happen. What needs to happen is for the Royals to acquire a legitimate corner OFer and make Teahen a 4th OFer/supersub who can play LF, RF, 1B, 3B, pinch hit and pinch run. He would be the kind of player who gets quite a few starts when players get a day off or go on the DL and many AB's over the course of a season. That would be the proper level of exposure and best use of a guy like Teahen.
I would prioritize these holes/needs as follows:
1. First base/Designated Hitter - get the biggest bat you can find and, as much as possible, disregard defense
2. Right Field - get a big bat, defense should be a secondary concern
3. Shortstop - a plus defender would be nice, but he has to be able to hit some - an average shortstop bat would be fine
These holes could be filled by trade or free agency. In general, I would be opposed to making a trade which creates as big of a hole as it fills. For instance, while I have long argued for trading DeJesus, I think I've decided it would be a bad idea. Teahen hasn't improved enough defensively, so I think the Royals would not move him to CF if DeJesus were traded. Unfortunately, the starting CFer would become Slappy Joe Buntright (aka, Joey Gathright). And, unfortunately, he's proven himself as a way, way below average hitting CFer. Joey is no better than a 5th OFer who can pinch run and come in as a defensive replacement. Unless a DeJesus trade brings back a package which included a major league ready CFer, the Royals can't afford to trade him.
I also don't know that all three of these holes have to be filled in order for the Royals to contend, but two of them almost certainly would have to be filled with at least league average players for their respective positions.
While the Royals have a few players who are legitimate deadline trade possibilities (like Grudz and Olivo), none of them would be enough to land someone who could be expected to sufficiently fill any of the above holes. I think the Royals main trading chips which could be used to acquire someone to fill some/any/all of those holes are (in no particular order):
Mark Teahen Joey Gathright Esteban German Perhaps one of Mahay/Nunez/Ramirez Jimmy Gobble Joel Peralta Carlos Rosa Dan Cortes Julio Pimentel Blake Wood
Of course, in order to get a legitimately good young player or MLB-ready prospect, the Royals would have to put together a package of some of the above players. As you can see, this list is not full of stars. So trades alone aren't going to fill the Royals holes. In fact, I'd be surprised if more than one of these holes could be satisfactorily filled by trade. So a free agent or two will have to be signed to fill the other holes. But the Royals do have an abundance of good pitching prospects. Dayton Moore is correct in saying that pitching is the currency of baseball. Sometime between now and opening day 2009, it's going to be time to spend that currency.
3 recs |
231
comments
Read Related
Comments
Good piece, but...
...I find, NYRoyal, your seemingly incessant focus on making Soria a starter to be mildly annoying/bothersome/irritating. Don’t mess with success. This one-to-one relation you propose between bullpen and starter success doesn’t just happen. The Ryan Dempsters of the world are the exception, not the rule.
Despite Teahan not being a good fit for the outfield, I don’t think we should trade him. After floating him all over the diamond, he is already--or is going to be—a great, Mark DeRosa-like supersub. Teahan should be a part of the core we keep.
Still, I agree with the core of your analysis. Something needs to be done about right field, shortstop, and first base.
PS – To Dayton, get Butler back up here immediately. There’s no reason to treat him differently than Gordon if we’re still developing players—-even if we happen to be winning a bit more this year. – TL
by timlacy on Jun 27, 2008 5:11 AM EDT 1 recs
I like how an offhand mention to something is an incessant focus.
I also like you cite Ryan Dempster, even though he was a starter for his first six major-league seasons (making a total of 156 starts for Florida and Cincinnati), then was hurt for a year, then was a reliever for three years, before returning to the rotation.
Soria was never a reliever before joining the Royals.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 27, 2008 7:17 AM EDT
up
0 recs
The "incessant" adjective...
...comes with a history. It was NYRoyal, I believe, who first advocated strongly for the move in a post in Feb. or March. And the advocation has extended to several subsequent posts. He knows I’m at least close to right, which is why he didn’t deny it below. – TL
by timlacy on
Jun 27, 2008 1:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
NYRoyal bringing up the idea
in Feb or March was not the first time it’s been brought up. A great many people think it’s a worthwhile idea and would love to see what the Mexicutioner could do in 180 innings.
It’s a legitimate argument, one which I subscribe to, and it’s not “incessant” unless the meaning of that particular has changed to “any idea for bettering the KC Royals.”
...ever think he might’ve taken the high road below?
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 27, 2008 1:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Two things
1. NYRoyal, whose tagline was “I probably disagree with you,” take the high road? Um, he’ll reply if he thinks I’m offbase.
2. Am I the only one who doesn’t like the “Mexicutioner” tagline? It’s a big ugly, but maybe that’s the sliver of academic correctness in me. C’est la vie. – TL
by timlacy on
Jun 27, 2008 1:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Oh, never mind.
What NYRoyal thinks of your little adjective, I found it petty. Plenty of people have argued that Soria should be a starter, including me, and plenty of people have argued against it. No one’s incessant about it.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 27, 2008 1:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
NYRoyal and Soria as a starter
I wasn’t the first person to bring up the idea of Soria in the rotation. It was discussed a great deal during the 2007 season by many Royals fans on this site, as well as by Dayton Moore and Bob McClure.
I guess it is ok for you to complain about my “incessant focus,” although I don’t think it is at all accurate. I don’t mention it any more than the “don’t mess with success” crowd.
I would suggest that the “don’t mess with success” people do some reading on the relative value of a SP vs. a closer. While the closer role clearly strikes an emotional chord with fans and it sure seems really important. Most of a closers’s innings aren’t particularly high leverage and aren’t anywhere near important enough to outweigh the value of the nearly 3 times as many innings such a pitcher would throw as a starter. In short, 180+ good SP innings are worth more to a team than 75 great closer innings. FWIW, the sabermetric research on this is unanimous and undisputed (and by that, I mean all of the sabermetricians agree on this point.
I want the Royals to get the most value out of their best players.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 27, 2008 1:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You say unanimous too often
In theory, with all things being equal, it is a great idea. Had Nunez stayed healthy this year, the Soria as a starter movement probably could have taken off.
Most of the plate appearances vs. Soria have been high leverage in his short MLB career, and there was nearly a 2:1 ratio of high and medium to low leverage TPAs against him last year.
What if the Royals are contenders in 2009-2011, as planned? Will their need for a closer diminish with more low leverage ninth innings? Joe Borowski faced 170 high leverage PAs, 55 medium leverage PAs, and 67 low leverage PAs last year when the Tribe won the AL Central. K-Rod faced 155/59/71 high/medium/low leverage PAs in 2007 when the Angels won the AL West. Papelbon faced 106/46/72 high/medium/low leverage PAs in 2007 on the stupidest team in MLB if the research you’re parroting is 100% true as you suggest. Joe Nathan had better than a 2:1 ratio of high & medium to low leverage TPAs against him in 2004. Mariano Rivera has also faced mostly high leverage TPAs in his career, with more than a 2:1 ratio of high & medium to low leverage TPAs against him. The research paper writers may have been in unanimous agreement about their conclusions, but where are the closers who spend most of their time in low leverge situations, I wonder?
The equally important question is who would close after Soria went to the rotation? Are you advocating paying for a “proven closer” or an Arthur Rhodes or Brandon Lyon? List your top 5 RP FAs to compete for the closer role. Maybe they’ll be more useful than Yabuta.
I was more onboard with the Soria as a starter deal when I first read about leverage and had heard that Soria has four pitches before that, but I can’t seem to find one closer with mostly low leverage situations. I don’t want Soria to be the next Scott Williamson, either. That’s a very real risk which you didn’t address. It would not be worth trying him as a starter were he to end up on the DL and not be able to perform either role well afterward.
In the real world, the question of whether Soria should be a starter or a closer is neither simplistic nor unanimous.
by Stat Ninja on
Jun 29, 2008 3:10 PM EDT
up
1 recs
The sabermetric research on this is unanimous and undisputd
I’m sorry, but it is. If you can find some sabermetric research which shows that a great closer is more valuable to his team than a good starting pitcher, then please show it to me. I’ve looked and I haven’t found any. I’ve found quite a bit which shows the opposite.
The research paper writers may have been in unanimous agreement about their conclusions, but where are the closers who spend most of their time in low leverge situations, I wonder?
No one is saying that most of a closer’s innings are in low leverage situations. You certainly won’t find any comments from me saying that. What I have said is that closer innings aren’t as high leverage as many fans and broadcasters pretend that they are. While their innings are, on average, higher leverage than SP innings, the increase in leverage does not make the value of those innings (75 as compared to 180+) greater than the value of SP innings. That is why all of the research is in agreement.
The equally important question is who would close after Soria went to the rotation? Are you advocating paying for a "proven closer" or an Arthur Rhodes or Brandon Lyon? List your top 5 RP FAs to compete for the closer role.
The closer role could be ably filled by Ramirez, Nunez or Mahay. And Moore can easily find another middle reliever on the FA market (as he has found Riske and Mahay).
In the real world, the question of whether Soria should be a starter or a closer is neither simplistic nor unanimous.
Please don’t pretend that your analysis is “real world” and mine and that of the sabermetric community is somehow unrealistic. That’s a joke.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 29, 2008 5:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not unanimous nor indisputable
Here is one BP writer who was still advocating keeping Papelbon as a closer in 2006, including this quote:
In fact, in only three cases in baseball history has a pitcher thrown at least 90% of his innings as a starter following a year in which he accumulated at least 25 saves and had an ERA of 3.00 or better.
I remember Rob Neyer (probably my favorite baseball-related author, FWIW) writing in favor of converting Papelbon to a starting role as well. His pro-starter argument also assumed that he would be more effective than Derek Lowe, the last Red Sox pitcher to convert from closing to starting with very mixed results in each role. Anecdotally, I suppose that it didn’t hurt the Red Sox too much to have kept Papelbon in the closer role in 2007.
No one is saying that most of a closer’s innings are in low leverage situations. You certainly won’t find any comments from me saying that.
Your exact words:
Most of a closers’s innings aren’t particularly high leverage…
You see, all of those examples I cited did in fact pitch MOSTLY in high leverage situations. If you have examples of closers with mostly medium or mostly low leverage situations, then feel free to enlighten us with some real data. And then we could discuss whether the closer’s stats had been watered down by pitching in too many non-save situations.
Moore can easily find another middle reliever on the FA market (as he has found Riske and Mahay).
Are you kidding? Riske gave up an OPS over 1.000 in high leverage work last year and .802 for his career in high leverage!
He could easily end up with the next Riske, I mean Ricky, Bottalico or Arthur Rhodes or trade for another Octavio Dotel or move Carlos Rosa into the role and reboot this conversation all over again.
Besides, who would be left to relieve the so-called most important innings 6-8, if you believe all of that?
Please don’t pretend that your analysis is "real world" and mine and that of the sabermetric community is somehow unrealistic.
Wow, I didn’t realize it was me vs. The Sabermetric Community. All I’d done was point out a few facts: that closers often spend most of their time in high leverage situations; that there is more to the decision than leverage# x IP; that the replacement closer’s performance could outweigh the gains, especially if the converted starter ERA is worse than expected; that injury could be an issue; and that the results are not always as simple as expected. I don’t believe the intent of the researchers was to replace all other thought or to ignore all other factors other than x*IP=justdoit!, so you can stop defending them as though they are your backup band or fraternity brothers or whatever.
Do you know why Arthur Rhodes failed as a closer after excelling as a set-up man for so long? I don’t know that, either. I don’t know that any research done as to why so many closers weren’t able to get it done.
There is an underlying assumption by leverage that there is no skill involved between performing well in a high/medium/low leverage situation. Do any of these pitchers have Attention Deficit Disorder, I wonder? One of many ADD traits on various lists I’ve seen include the ability to focus in high-pressure situations, and many athletes have been diagnosed as having ADD. I don’t know what the science is behind that information, and it would be difficult to translate to baseball, but it suggests that a scientific basis for high leverage skill may exist. Interestingly enough, the stat which assumed that there would be no skill to performing in low/med/high leverage situations may prove just that over time.
by Stat Ninja on
Jun 29, 2008 10:36 PM EDT
up
1 recs
Reply
Here is one BP writer who was still advocating keeping Papelbon as a closer in 2006
That has a lot to do with the particulars of Boston’s situation. He is used in higher leverage situations than closers. And the Sox get into more such situations (high leverage with the team winning) than a team like the Royals, and indeed probably more than any other team in baseball.
In fact, in only three cases in baseball history has a pitcher thrown at least 90% of his innings as a starter following a year in which he accumulated at least 25 saves and had an ERA of 3.00 or better.
I find it odd and interesting that you’d select this quote. This only goes to show that full-time closers rarely turn into full-time starters a year later. Is that supposed to be significant? No intelligent organization would take a full-time closer and his roughly 75 ip and make him a full-time starter the next year at 180+ innings. Increasing IP by that much would be criminally negligent and would likely lead to injury. Someone making the transition from closer to starter must be brought along slowly, increasing IP from one season to the next by roughly 30 innings.
Me: No one is saying that most of a closer’s innings are in low leverage situations. You certainly won’t find any comments from me saying that.
You: Your exact words:
Me: Most of a closers’s innings aren’t particularly high leverage…
Exactly. I did not say that most of a closer’s innings are in low leverage situations. I said that most of a closer’s innings are not in high leverage situations. There is something in between high leverage and low leverage, isn’t there? It would be pretty odd to say that there is no middle ground. In fact I think you recognize a middle ground by using BP’s “high/med/low leverage” trichotomy. For most closers, if you add the low and medium leverage appearances or PA’s, they are greater than his high leverage appearances or PA’s. Therefore, most of a closer’s innings aren’t particularly high leverage.
You see, all of those examples I cited did in fact pitch MOSTLY in high leverage situations. If you have examples of closers with mostly medium or mostly low leverage situations, then feel free to enlighten us with some real data. And then we could discuss whether the closer’s stats had been watered down by pitching in too many non-save situations.
Papelbon – low/medium 138 high 106
River – low/medium 2052, high 1911
Most of the plate appearances vs. Soria have been high leverage in his short MLB career
Do you even read the data you link to? Most of Soria’s PA’s have NOT been high leverage
Soria – low/medium 210 high 194
Other closers with more career low/medium leverage PA’s than high leverage PA’s
Rob Nen
B.J. Ryan
F. Rodriguez
The list goes on and on. You seem to be putting a lot on medium leverage situations. I wonder if you know what a medium leverage situation is. I’ll give you a for instance. According to BP, median leverage is approximately 1.66 (the higher the number, the higher the leverage). And the leverage for a typical 2-run save (starting the 9th inning, no one on base, 2-run lead) is 0.91. Even a 2-run save in the 9th isn’t very high leverage. It’s considerably below average leverage. So, for most (if not all) “medium leverage” situations, you don’t need your shut-down closer.
Are you kidding? Riske gave up an OPS over 1.000 in high leverage work last year and .802 for his career in high leverage!
Did you read what I wrote? You asked me who would close if Soria moved to the rotation. I said Ramirez, Nunez or Mahay. Then Moore could find another reliever on the FA market to take the newly opened up middle relief/setup role.
Wow, I didn’t realize it was me vs. The Sabermetric Community
Well, now you know.
so you can stop defending them as though they are your backup band or fraternity brothers or whatever.
No, I’m pointing to serious research which should be given more weight than the gut feelings of fans like me or you.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 12:09 AM EDT
up
0 recs
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrelt;./4ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttp['=[]'
by Sean O Se on
Jun 27, 2008 2:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
i should never leave my keyboard open with cats around.
but i think Sebastian made a good point.
by Sean O Se on
Jun 27, 2008 2:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I was going to ask if you had a seizure or an aneurysm
But now that you mention it, I can’t disagree with anything Sebastian wrote.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 27, 2008 3:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The "incessant" adjective
also comes with a definition. Perhaps you could look it up, or I can save you the trouble: it means without cease. Not “frequently” or “every so often” or “when it’s relevant and appropriate”.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on
Jun 27, 2008 3:07 PM EDT
up
1 recs
"Soria was never a reliever before joining the Royals"
You’ve mentioned this a few times, but it is incorrect.
Soria spent time as both a starter and a reliever before joining the Royals, but was primarily used as a reliever.
In 2005, he pitched the entire year in Mexico and was usually used out of the bullpen. In 2006, he split the year between Mexico and San Diego’s Midwest League affiliate. In his time with Mexico, he was one of the league leaders in saves. Once he came to the Midwest League, he had 7 appearances on the year – all coming out of the bullpen.
To say that he was never a reliever before 2007 is utterly false.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 28, 2008 2:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
He was a starter and a reliever before
I see no reason there should be a dispute.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 28, 2008 6:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Dispute or no dispute
I thought it should be pointed out that Soria certainly worked as a reliever before joining the Royals.
As for the above argument, I really don’t have a strong preference either way. I could understand trying him out as a starter, but I can easily see why we would keep him in the closer’s role. Win-win either way.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on
Jun 28, 2008 6:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree that he'll be successful either
way. Though I lean heavily towards making him a starter at some point.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 28, 2008 6:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
A win-win
It would also be a win either way if Jose Guillen were a starting OFer or a pinch hitter. He’d succeed in either role. But in one of those roles, he’d help the team a lot more than the other.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 28, 2008 7:07 PM EDT
up
1 recs
Notion of Soria as a successful starter
is a bit wore out. His fastball is 90-91 coming out of the pen. What is it going to be after 3-4 innings? 85? He primarily throws only two pitches out the pen as well the fastball and the curve. While the curve is a nasty pitch we all saw what Posada did with it after seeing it a couple times. I know that is a isolated incident but I just don’t think he would be the same quality 3-4 times through the lineup and facing guys multiple (10+) times during a year.
Currrently he can get away with the 90-91 mph fastball (ala Hoffman) because of its location and the adjustment to his stuff from other pitchers who pitched previously (Ram, Nunez, Mahay) but I think he would lose some of that effectiveness over multiple outings because he would lose velocity and location as he wore down in an outing.
JMO but if Hoch (#2 or3) develops as we have seen glimpses this year, Meche (#2 or 3) doesn’t get traded and returns to ‘07 form which he seems like he is headed down that path. Greinke is a TRUE #1 and gets resigned, Banni (#4) pitches like he has done all year up and down but somewhat streaky consistent. Then KC is left with only a #5 open for Soria in the rotation with arms like Davies, Rosa, Bale (who I hate) more than likely all ready for ‘09 I just don’t see the value as Soria in the rotation. I know 180 IP is alot but I look at Soria’s 70 IP as far more valuable and I would rather run him out there every other night than Mahay, RamRam or Nunez even though I have confidence in them.
I think Soria should only be moved to the rotation if one of three things happens. KC loses Greinke to FA or trade, Trades away Meche or all three #5 options I mentioned above turns into Tomko jr.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on
Jun 29, 2008 10:04 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Reply
to myself. I know he has four pitches and can lean on the other two he doesn’t use much but we don’t know if those other two are as quality is my point.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on
Jun 29, 2008 10:05 AM EDT
up
0 recs
He shows night after night that he has four good pitches
He has proven that they are quality pitches. All of the scouting reports and analysts I have read have referred to them as good pitches, not “average,” “developing” or “questionable” pitches.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 29, 2008 10:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
My reply
Notion of Soria as a successful starter is a bit wore out
It’s worn out to the people who don’t agree with it.
His fastball is 90-91 coming out of the pen. What is it going to be after 3-4 innings? 85?
I would say that his fastball is more like 90-92, but that’s quibbling. Do other pitchers lose 5-7 mph off of their fastball after 3-4 innings? Of course not.
He primarily throws only two pitches out the pen as well the fastball and the curve.
He throws a lot of at least 3 pitches in every appearance, as well as a fourth.
Currrently he can get away with the 90-91 mph fastball (ala Hoffman) because of its location and the adjustment to his stuff from other pitchers who pitched previously (Ram, Nunez, Mahay) but I think he would lose some of that effectiveness over multiple outings because he would lose velocity and location as he wore down in an outing.
Like every pitcher, he would lose 1-2 mph off of his fastball going from reliever to starter. Considering that he doesn’t primarily succeed by use of his velocity, I don’t see this as a major problem. As far as your assumption that he’d lose a lot of velocity after 3-4 innings, you have no support for that. That doesn’t happen to other pitchers. Do you have some reason to believe that he has so little strength or stamina that he’ll lose velocity more than any other pitcher?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 29, 2008 10:34 AM EDT
up
0 recs
It happens to quite a few pitchers
Gil Meche throws in the mid 90’s at the start of games and throws in the low 90’s late in games. Its not if he can hit 90-92 mid-late in games but what he is consistently going to hit late in games the difference between 91 and 88 is a Huge difference to ML hitters. I do believe his stamina is up to par of a starter. He on more than one occassion has needed an extra (more than 1) day off when KC could’ve used him after throwing multiple games.
Further down he was compared to Maddux. I imagine because of his slower fastball and number of capable pitches. One of the differences between Soria and Maddux is the amount of movement on their fastball. Maddux fastball appeared to move anywhere from 6-8 inches lateraly, I might be wrong but I don’t see Soria with that much movement. I am not saying his fastball doesn’t have movement just not as much. I also don’t think Maddux would’ve had quite as much success with baseballs current focus on the strikezone. The late 80’s early to mid 90’s the Braves pitchers strikezone was often 6 inches off the outside of the plate. I think you see a little less of that today. Not saying Maddux still wouldn’t be good to great just not as good to great.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on
Jun 29, 2008 12:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Nobody loses 5 mph over the course of a game
It is rare for a pitcher to lose more than 2 or 3 mph over the course of a game. Many SP’s succed very well with a 89-90 mph fastball, particularly when they have excellent control and other plus pitches.
I do believe his stamina is up to par of a starter. He on more than one occassion has needed an extra (more than 1) day off when KC could’ve used him after throwing multiple games.
I assume that was a typo and you meant that his stamina is NOT up to par for a starter. Of course it isn’t at this point! No pitcher who is being used as a one inning only reliever is stretched out enough to have much stamina. But, if you stretch him out and start using him every 5th day as a SP, there is absolutely no reason to believe he won’t then have sufficient stamina to be a starter.
Further down he was compared to Maddux
They are similar kinds of pitchers, but I’m certainly not predicting Maddux-like success and multiple Cy Young awards.
I also don’t think Maddux would’ve had quite as much success with baseballs current focus on the strikezone. The late 80’s early to mid 90’s the Braves pitchers strikezone was often 6 inches off the outside of the plate. I think you see a little less of that today.
And, at the same time, the top and bottom of the strike zone are much larger than they were in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Back then, pitchers weren’t getting strikes at the belt, much less over it.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 29, 2008 1:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Meche loses 4-5 his last 3 times out. Starts 94-95 and sits around 90-91 about the 5th inning. I’m talking where he throws the higher amount of fastballs. The Braves pitchers in that time period got their fair share of pitches at the belt and above. I should know I was at the Cardinals-Braves game the year McGwire hit 70. We treked all the way to Stl from Omaha just to see McGwire get run in the first inning for arguing a called strike three he took from Glavine.
One other thing this comment
That’s a joke.
Some of the people on here just spent the better third of this post ragging on a guy for calling your opinion as incessant and you break out your opinion of his analysis is a joke? Come On almost every time someone differs with your guys opinions it breaks out into this. I’ve been on here for the better part of a month and that is what I continue to see, whether it is the Aviles Debate, Soria Starter Debate or anything else.
IMO the Sabermetric community far underplays the psychological effect of the game. That is false players play this game and while you can roll all their stats in these nice time capsules every game is played one by one by each player. Could I tell you that Michael Jordan was gonna average 30 pts per game over a 82 game stretch yes, but is it gonna tell that in the important game of the NBA finals with a severe case of the flu he would rise above and drop 40+ NO. The saber-metrics of that would tell you he would score less than his career average because players as a whole play worse with the flu. Would it tell you that a dominant closer like Dennis Eckersley led A’s would have any problem with Kirk Gibson’s bad knees and watch the Dodger leave one in the right seats demoralizing that team and go on to a 4 game sweep. Only afterwards can they tell you anything. They aren’t predictors they gather info and spit out possibilities and in most cases they are wrong as much as they are right. Most players I’ve heard from deem dominant closers (which is what KC has) as pretty valuable commodities.
What do the stats say for a Closer vs Starting Pitcher(s) on a team that scores 600-700 runs, does that change anything? Or does it change at 750 runs? With most statistical curves there is breaking point at which it can be proven wrong. Based on KC’s performance of the past don’t they need to find that point and try to isolate it. Does the closers roll become more or less important then? How about for a team like the Cardinals? 18 Blown Saves would they trade Soria for Pineiro or Izzy first? Again IMO KC isn’t going to have a knock out drag out offense anytime soon so if that is the case Soria’s involvement in saving good Meche, Greinke and so and so games are more important than as a 4 or 5th starter. KC could easily have 8-10 more BS (that could be a low number) by moving someone average to the closer spot is Soria gonna win 8-10 more games in the rotation than a Davies/Rosa/Bale?
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on
Jun 29, 2008 9:57 PM EDT
up
1 recs
Reply
Meche loses 4-5 his last 3 times out. Starts 94-95 and sits around 90-91 about the 5th inning. I’m talking where he throws the higher amount of fastballs.
No, you’re wrong. Go back through the pitch f/x data and you won’t find that he’s ever throwing his fastball consistently at 94-95. His fastball peaks at 94-95. That’s where the very fastest of his fastballs hit. In the early innings, his fastball is coming in at 92-93. By the late innings, he’s down to 90-91. His average fastball velocity drops by maybe 2 mph.
Some of the people on here just spent the better third of this post ragging on a guy for calling your opinion as incessant and you break out your opinion of his analysis is a joke?
No, I didn’t say that his analysis was a joke. I will direct your attention to what I actually said:
Please don’t pretend that your analysis is "real world" and mine and that of the sabermetric community is somehow unrealistic. That’s a joke.
What I said there was that his “in the real world” comment implied that his analysis was well grounded in reality and that my analysis (and that of the sabermetric community) was unrealistic. That notion is a joke.
IMO the Sabermetric community far underplays the psychological effect of the game
Perhaps they do. But at least statistical analysis deals with known, quantifiable variables. Taking psychology into account entirely involves guesswork. How important is psychology/mindset/attitude/etc. in the making of a good closer? We have no idea. I don’t know, you don’t know, Joe Morgan doesn’t know. So when we’ve got known quantifiable variables on one hand and mere guesswork on the other, I’m going to hang my hat on the former.
They aren’t predictors they gather info and spit out possibilities and in most cases they are wrong as much as they are right.
Their predictions based on that info that “gather…and spit out” have a much better accuracy rate than any prediction or projection system which is not based on advanced statistical analysis.
Most players I’ve heard from deem dominant closers (which is what KC has) as pretty valuable commodities.
No one is suggesting otherwise. Dominant closers are clearly valuable. Good starting pitchers are also valuable. What is being debated is whether a great closer is more valuable to his team than a good starter.
What do the stats say for a Closer vs Starting Pitcher(s) on a team that scores 600-700 runs, does that change anything? Or does it change at 750 runs? With most statistical curves there is breaking point at which it can be proven wrong.
I think the breaking point for this may have to do more with the run differential than with the number of runs scored. Perhaps with a run differential closer to zero (as opposed to +100 or -100) there will be a disproportionately high number of high leverage innings for a closer to pitch, thus increasing his value over the average closer. But that’s just a theory off the top of my head.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 30, 2008 12:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Theory
I think the breaking point for this may have to do more with the run differential than with the number of runs scored. Perhaps with a run differential closer to zero (as opposed to +100 or -100) there will be a disproportionately high number of high leverage innings for a closer to pitch, thus increasing his value over the average closer. But that’s just a theory off the top of my head.That’s exactly what I’m talking about where is the statistical analysis? Anybody can write that a starter who pitches 180-200 IP is more valuable than a guy that pitches 70 Ip. I would like to see where it shows a team that has a run differential in the +50-100 point(since KC is probably gonna be in that range). I think Total Runs would have to come in to play as well because you are talking 180-200 IP vs 70 IP and the run differential data would be too inaccurate to prove one pitchers performance.
As for Meche I would be interested to see his pitch data for his last 4-5 starts. He is consistently in the 94-95 mph range early (1st/2nd inning) in his most recent starts. His pitch data might be lower earlier in the year when he obviously had less velocity topping around 92-94 and pitching in the 88-89 range quite a bit.
Billy at worst will be Sean Casey jr.
by kcscoliny on
Jun 30, 2008 9:35 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Its not just NYRoyal
The Royals have been rumored to be considering moving Soria to the rotation as well. The contract stipulation about him being a starter is obvious evidence they are considering it. As well they should, 200 innings of Soria is more valuable than 70 innings of Soria.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on
Jun 27, 2008 8:57 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Royals + NYRoyal + All goodhearted people
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Jun 27, 2008 12:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
+1
My use of the term ‘incessant’ by no means should be construed as a dislike by me of NYRoyal. His posts are generally thoughtful. He just has this one fetish about Soria, and it’s been backed up by team brass. – TL
by timlacy on
Jun 27, 2008 1:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
My "fetish" has been backed up by other fans, analysts, team brass (to some extent) and essentially the entire population of sabermetricians
It wasn’t even my idea. I just jumped on the bandwagon when it became evident what would be best for the Royals. Hell, I’m a relative Johnny-come-lately.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 27, 2008 1:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You fetishy freak
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 27, 2008 1:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I find, NYRoyal, your seemingly incessant focus on making Soria a starter to be mildly annoying/bothersome/irritating. Don’t mess with success. This one-to-one relation you propose between bullpen and starter success doesn’t just happen. The Ryan Dempsters of the world are the exception, not the rule.
I think everyone’s well aware of your feelings on the subject of Soria possibly converting to a starter, and no one’s calling your opinion an incessant focus or giving it any other somewhat insulting title.
I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: we debate a lot of topics on RR, and what can make these debates unpleasant sometimes is when people to use ad hominem arguments rather than actually debating said topic.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 27, 2008 12:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
There you go with your big words again, nerd
What, are you trying to show off? We’re right back to anal goe again.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Jun 27, 2008 12:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
hey, didn't you read? no ad hominem remarks
you big turd brain
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on
Jun 27, 2008 12:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Me? Nothing, nothing,
just wondering why some people don’t seem to get the distinction between:
-Arguing reasonable opposing points-of-view
AND
-Deriding someone else’s reasonable point-of-view as inherently inferior with no real basis.
Ad hominem, tu quoque, antidisestablishmentintarinsm(who cares how you spell that), supercalifragilisticexpeallidoshus.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 27, 2008 12:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think it must be people gearing up for the upcoming
election season.
The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future. - Collected sayings of Muad'Dib
by buddyball on
Jun 27, 2008 1:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ugh
I really don’t look forward to all the bullshit that goes on during said season. I just cast my vote and run away.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 27, 2008 1:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Claiming to find something...
...irritating does not constitute an ad hominem argument. It’s simply a statement of my emotional reaction to the proposition from NYRoyal, who has (at least) continually (if not incessantly) argued for Soria to be in the rotation. I’d say his expressions on that matter here at RR outnumber my comments to the contrary. Anyway, I like NYRoyal. It’s comforting to know that there are Royals fans in NYC! – TL
by timlacy on
Jun 27, 2008 1:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
As I said,
attacking someone’s argument reasonably is fine, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to call someone else’s argument incessant and irritating just because you don’t agree with it.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 27, 2008 1:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Soria and Teahen
I find, NYRoyal, your seemingly incessant focus on making Soria a starter to be mildly annoying/bothersome/irritating.
I find the placement of that comment as a response to this fanpost to be particularly odd. All I did was mention that Soria is a rotation possibility. Any analysis of the Royals starting pitching for the near future should include a mention that Soria is a possibility for the rotation. Like it or not, it might happen. As Retro pointed out, this is not just a creation of the fevered imaginations of fans. Moore and McClure have talked about that possibility more than once and then there’s his contract. It could happen, and it would affect the quality of the rotation.
This one-to-one relation you propose between bullpen and starter success doesn’t just happen.
I have never said that all or even most successful relievers would make good starters. I have never said that all or even most successful closers would make good starters. The vast majority of good relievers definitely would NOT succeed as starting pitchers. Most relievers are relievers because they have only one or two good pitches and/or inconsistent control. For instance, a great reliever like Mariano Rivera (even at his peak) would not make a good starting pitcher, because he has only one good pitch. As a closer you can ride one good pitch to a successful career. If that one good pitch is a great pitch, you can become the best closer in the history of the game. But if you had to go three times through a lineup with that one great pitch, you’re going to eventually get hammered.
Joakim Soria, on the other hand has at last 4 good pitches and pinpoint control. He, unlike most closers, has the pitch arsenal and control of a very good starting pitcher. He can add and subtract velocity and make every pitch move. He’s got several ways to get batters out and his pitches almost always go exactly where he wants them. He fits the perfect profile of successful starting pitcher. But you know what the best part is? If I and others are wrong and he fails as a starter, he can go right back into the bullpen with minimal harm done. There’s absolutely no reason not to try it.
Despite Teahan not being a good fit for the outfield, I don’t think we should trade him. After floating him all over the diamond, he is already—or is going to be—a great, Mark DeRosa-like supersub. Teahan should be a part of the core we keep.
If a guy isn’t good enough to start at any available position on the team, then he isn’t part of the core. Good bench players aren’t part of the core which should not be part of the untouchable core. As I mentioned above, he’d make a very good supersub, so he’d be very useful for this team. But, if you can use him as part of a trade which fills a position of need, then I wouldn’t hesitate to trade him. Filling a starting player spot is more important than keeping your supersub.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on
Jun 27, 2008 1:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Just a thought: ...
...Doesn’t Maddux really only have one good pitch, his change-up/breaking ball. It actually acts like a knuckler. I thought of this in relation to your argument on Rivera (i.e. his superb cutter).
And, to me (to continue thoughts from earlier posts), being a closer is more about one’s mentality (i.e. Borowski) than the quality of one’s pitches. Borowski, Rivera, Hoffman, and Soria (I think) have a great bounceback/aggressive mentality that works well in the bullpen.
...I’m sorry the incessant part came at the beginning, creating the odd tone for my overall comment set. It’s just that you’ve been a high-profile advocate for Soria’s changing roles here. No big deal. As long as he succeeds in any role we need, that’s all that matters in the very end. – TL
by timlacy on
Jun 27, 2008 1:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Eek,
being a closer is a lot more about when you are put into the ballgame than any sort of magic mentality, for my money.
A mind without purpose will walk in dark places.
by NHZ on
Jun 27, 2008 1:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Maddux
.Doesn’t Maddux really only have one good pitch, his change-up/breaking ball. It actually acts like a knuckler. I thought of this in relation to your argument on Rivera (i.e. his superb cutter).
Not at all. I, and I think most, would say that Maddux, even at his peak didn’t have any great pitches, but he had multiple good pitches. In that way, he profiles a lot like Soria (not that I think Soria would become as good as Maddux).
And, to me (to continue thoughts from earlier posts), being a closer is more about one’s mentality (i.e. Borowski) than the quality of one’s pitches. Borowski, Rivera, Hoffman, and Soria (I think) have a great bounceback/aggressive mentality that works well in the bullpen.
No one can prove or disprove the “closers have a special mentality” argument. I think there might be a small percentage of good relievers who can’t handle the stress of being a closer. But the reality is that many non-closer relievers face as many or more high leverage situations than a closer does. When a team gets in trouble with runners on in the 6th, 7th or 8th inning, they call in a setup man, not a closer (with the occasional exception of a closer coming in with 2 outs in the 8th). Setup men are the new firemen who come into the game in the highest leverage situations to put out fires. Closers typically have more 2-out, 3-out and non-save situation appearances than genuinely difficult one-run save situations. I don’t think those low leverage situations require a special mentality.
Being a good pitcher is much more about the quality of one’s pitches that about his mentality. Rivera, Hoffman and Soria are/where great closers because of their stuff and control. Borowski has only appeared to be a decent closer because of the Save totals. The fact that with his mediocre-to-poor pitching, he’s still been able to get saves just goes to show how easy it is to get a save. If you put even a mediocre pitcher into a closer’s role and hand him the ball in every save situation in the 9th, he’s going to rac

