So Where Are We At With Kyle Davies?
by Freneau on Dec 29, 2009 1:59 PM EST
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
PrintSo, Royals fans, where are we at with Kyle Davies?
Davies was an interesting arm in 2007, a promising one in 2008, and a disappointing one in 2009. As such, he's essentially like 80% of the proverbial "live arms" out there now: some good, some bad, a whole lot of questions.
Davies will be 26 next season, and has now started 99 games at the Major League level. Are you as surprised by that number as I am? There aren't many human beings who get a chance to make 99 starts in a big league uniform, and now Davies is one of them. In three seasons as a Royal, Davies owns a 5.03 ERA, good for an ERA+ of 88.
So what's Davies's place on the 2010 Royals?
There's a growing sentiment that Davies has now reached the point in his career when he needs to be sent to the bullpen. Are you at that point? Is that too much of an over-reaction to one bad season? After all, a strong case could be made that Davies was worthy of a long-term contract after 2008?
128 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
kind of mixed feelings
Based upon the end of last year I hope Tejeda forces the Royals to put Davies in the bullpen. However, I was hoping last year that Davies September meant that he had turned the corner.
On second thought, I would like to see Davies make it as a starter, and the Royals put Bannister in the bullpen. I think Bannister’s cerebral approach would make him an excellent long reliever, but that he is never going to have the stuff to be a great starter. I am holding out hope that Davies may have the stuff to be a solid starter. Solid enough that the Royals can trade him for someone worthwhile when Crow shows up.
interesting
I would like to see Davies make it as a starter, and the Royals put Bannister in the bullpen.
although wouldn’t the standard line of thinking say that this would be the worst way to use Bannister? the bullpen seems to be all about stuff and the ability to get 2-3 guys out
Try the bullpen
99 starts is a decent enough sample size for me.
In addition, he seems to have stagnated, with some of his “problem areas” (i.e., command and control) remaining “problem areas” to this day.
The arm and stuff are certainly good enough to be a productive pitcher of some kind – maybe a shift to the pen will help him focus better, or eliminate one pitch, or something.
Unfortunately, the minors seem to be a year away from supplying replacement candidates for the rotation. (and for that matter, perhaps said replacement candidates should be eased in using a long relief role first anyway, a la Santana…)
Last reason for trying it (and I apologize in advance for being a snarky, overcritical cynic of this franchise): The Royals are the last front office I trust to properly deploy their assets to get the most value from them. If they see Davies as a starter – then there just might be a larger than normal chance that they are dead wrong about it. Just ask Tom Gordon.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
i think the move to the bullpen hinges more on what our starting situation is
we currently have greinke, meche, bannister and then hochevar, tejeda, and davies with some outside chances like lerew. i’m more willing to give up on davies as a starter than i am hochevar and if tejeda is looking like the starter he was last year, he should be in the rotation.
i think davies can be an adequate starter going forward and possibly a good reliever, but i don’t expect too much from him in the relief role. he seemed to have issues with control in the first inning.
It should be a given Bannister is at least a decent 4th starter type
Which means that with all the things outside a pitcher’s control, his results will fluctuate between 3rd starter to 5th starter.
as a starter,
I think Banny is 15 or even 20% better than Davies, easily.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
their '09 FIP would say otherwise
Bannister- 4.14
Davies- 5.31
although Banny's favorite (xFIP) narrows the margin
Bannister- 4.37
Davies- 5.12
I would project Bannister as half to a full win better than Davies as a starter
Being able to maintain a K/BB near 2:1 and be at least average in generating groundballs makes a big difference.
should have added
they certainly SHOULD give Tejeda a long, serious look as a starter in spring training.
Personally, I think his “stuff” is better than Davies, and that he is more of a candidate to suddenly “put it together” if he can harness his control.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
Pen
His good 2008 season was really just a fluky HR/FB rate and a very good month (September) after he had already been demoted in the summer for being ineffective.
His service time is driving the decision about him more than age. He is already in his arbitration years and starting to make real money now (almost $2 million next year, with another arbitration-inflated raise due after that), and even if he is not non-tender next fall, he is a free agent the year after that.
Further development is also questionable given that Davies’s main problems are his command and control — he’s never come close to posting a 2.0 K/BB rate. It happens, but pitchers entering their late 20s who have struggled with their command and control throughout their careers usually do not significantly improve them as they approach 30. Starters who generate lots of groundballs can get away with a below average K/BB rate, but Davies is a flyball pitcher, so he will always be more prone to surrender home runs.
As a reliever, Davies would probably be effective with minimal improvement. Pitchers who move to the pen almost always add velocity and control becomes much less of an issue. He has a good changeup and modest platoon splits, so he could potentially maximize his value by pitching more than one inning — kind of like what the Rays did with JP Howell.
so do we try to get our money's worth next season?
maybe one last go as a starter?
or does it even matter? I’d hate to spend $3 M or more for a reliever (for 2011 and beyond), although I guess that’s where we’re at
Given Davies could be a non-tender candidate in ten months
I would move him to the pen now so the decision on him as a reliever is more than 20 innings pieced together in August and September. If he takes off, the team can always try him again in the rotation ala Greinke.
Of course, in a better world, the Royals have already picked up a young starter making the league minimum this offseason, but maybe Campillo can hold his own as a fifth starter.
Campillo 2010 = HoRam 2009??
Davies is only 26. I’d give him this year as a starter, if it’s obvious he can’t hack it by the ASB, then move him to the pen. Plenty of players don’t put it all together til later in their 20’s.
I guess the main thing I see with Davies is that he walks too many people. If he could cut that while improving strikeouts, he could be above league average, but those walks are killing him. He did cut his H/9 last season to a career low, but his BB/9 was essentially a career high (except rookie year). Basically, instead of doing McDonald’s construction jobs this offseason he should be working on his control. He could still be good, but man, that WHIP he sports is pretty ugly (never below 1.45 in a season).
As mentioned above, it is more about service time than age
The Royals only have Davies under club control for this year and maybe next year idepending on how much he stands to make in arbitration, so at this point, the Royals should be trying to maximize their value out of Davies. Davies has shown no real improvement in cutting his walks or getting strikeouts since he came up, so I am not sure another three months is going to make much of a difference.
Converting Davies to a reliever also makes it more likely that they can afford him next year — starters and relievers have completely different salary structures. Even if he is good as a reliever, he will not stand to get much of a raise in arbitration. But even bad starters get paid well in arbitration.
But, yeah, the team is short on options for other starters. Campillo is better than HoRam, but more of an insurance policy than somebody you want to build your rotation around.
I don't know that maximizing his value would be putting him in the bullpen
Starters have much larger contributions to the team (and bigger WARs too), so if you are talking about limiting his usage to maximize his effectiveness, we might as well dump him. I know pitcher’s ERA drops about a run with a trip to the pen, so he’s bound to be better there, but he would help the team the most as a starter long term. Though maybe he figures it out in the bullpen. I’m not really against either way, but I would like to see him develop into an above average starter before we have to start paying him arb money to do so.
But he has not been effective as a starter
He has averaged about 0.6 WAR as a starter per fangraphs (0.2 wAR per statcorner). A good reliever can beat that. And relievers make less, so the Royals would be paying less for more production.
Excellent analysis, Gopherballs
You touched on an interesting point: he is about to become more expensive.
Perhaps he thrives in a relief role, and he can be flipped for something else we need after this season. Although it is counterintuitive, as we all adhere to the meme that starters are more valuable than relievers, perhaps in this case, if he did improve enough as a reliever, he might generate MORE trade value that way? And, since 2010 is quite likely a 95 loss season waiting to happen – why not gamble on generating something of value out of Davies before it is too late?
Put yourself in another GM’s shoes. Are you interested in trading for Davies in winter 2010, if he is coming off another 4.75 ERA year with middling control, or trading for an intriguing setup man coming off, say, a 3.25 ERA in his first year of bullpen duty?
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
If he thrives as a reliever
he would likely be more affordable in 2011, as relievers — even good ones — get much less in arbitration than bad starters.
By the way, great debate topic, RR
but I get the sinking feeling that this will be debated more intensely here on RR than in the Royals front office – and that’s sad.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
by loyal2sdad on Dec 29, 2009 2:38 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I guess the other issue here is Meche
if he gets traded or is unhealthy, we suddenly have another chunk of starts that need to be made
Why the Meche injury concern?
It's not like we have a manager that ignores pitch counts on orders from his GM or anything...
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
Brad Thompson, Jorge Campillo
Are fine guys to step in as injury replacement.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Yeah, I'm actually ok with the Royals depth at SP
Greinke
Meche
Bannister
Hochevar
Tejeda
Davies
Campilo
Etc.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
I Could Be
Surprised by the bottom of that list ‘s performance, but I don’t expect much from them. Just give us 5-6 innings without letting the game get out of reach. It’s not like we’ll likely be in a pennant race this year. At any rate, I don’t want to see resources go toward starting pitching at this point.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 30, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
Not sure if Bullington will be used as a starter or reliever
but I kind of like his signing. He has posted good K/BB and groundball rates in the minors. He could be serviceable as a backend starter.
I actually
Wouldn’t be at all surprised to see one of our NRIs become a decent 4.30 – 4.50 ERA starter and be rewarded with a ridiculous contract extension.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Hochevar has an option left
If Hochevar spends a full season in KC, he’ll almost certainly be arb-eligible as a Super Two next winter. If I’m Dayton Moore, I’d like to have two full seasons to see what I have in Hochevar before I have to decide whether to throw more of my boss’s good money at my predecessor’s mistake. So, Opening Day rotation is Greinke/Meche/Banny/Tejeda/Davies, with Hochevar making the leap when one of the above gets hurt or loses his rotation spot.
He'll love having his clock rigged
Two years in a row.
And It’s Bairds mistake and Moore’s sucess, depending on outing, I think you will find.
It's not rigging
When you suck. Hochevar has posted a 6.06 ERA in 47 starts between 2008-09. You probably could count on one hand the number of franchises that would have given such an ineffective SP so many chances to prove himself. (And I’m one of the people who actually thinks Hochevar still has upside!!)
His other numbers were much better than that ERA
Not saying he had a great year, but don’t let that ugly number cloud your thoughts on Hochevar. Hochevar has definitely shown a higher ceiling than Davies or even Bannister.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
agreed
With average luck (and an average defense), Hochevar would be within be within shouting distance of league average.
Hochevar and Banny = apples and oranges. Banny’s value doesn’t lie in his potential so much as in what he already is— a league-average innings eater who’s under the Royals’ control for 3 more years.
If there was ever a pitcher and a year
for whom ERA was a poor measure of performance, then Hochevar’s 2009 with the Royals 2009 defense behind him was it. His FIP was 4.84.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Dec 29, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
Meche won't be traded
The Royals have only three valuable trade assets: Greinke, Butler and Soria. Greinke is, rightly, untouchable. No one will give the Royals fair value for Butler; if Moore put BB on the block, everyone would wonder what was wrong with him. Moore doesn’t have the balls to trade Soria.
As a trade asset, Meche is like a low-rent Butler. If the Royals were insolvent, they could find someone who’d take Meche off their hands, but no one will give value for the right to pay 2/24 to a guy whose health is uncertain, and who is more of a mid-rotation type for a contender even when healthy.
I think Meche would have huge value to a contending team
especially in the NL, especially in the NL central
he could really make a difference for one of those teams, assuming he’s healthy
but meche is probably a topic for another day
Trade deadline prospect haul for Meche
An NL team looking to make a push would take a healthy Meche. He’s at least a #2 in the NL when healthy. Somebody desperate might overpay, then again, we might end up with Willy Taveras. Unfortunately, he’ll have to go out and prove he is healthy to start the year before he has any trade value.
Healthy
My point exactly. If Meche regains his 2007-08 form, Moore will have many suitors for Meche. He might even be able to get a package like what Cliff Lee fetched— not that Meche is as valuable as Lee, but I think there are reasons to think the Indians got less than fair value for Lee.
The problem with waiting until the ASB is that it gives Trey 3 months to run up his pitch counts.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
And also had
posted two above average seasons (rookie year + 2008), and was younger than Davies…
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
I also think of Jorge de la Rosa
he’d seemingly been around forever, and I hated him as a Royal, but he’s been decent to good for the rockies the last two years
interesting comp
But Davies has a lot more innings under his belt than de la Rosa did at the same age.
Davies should start the year in Omaha, but I believe he’s out of options. The 2010 Royals aren’t going anywhere, so I think they should give Davies one last chance to stick in the rotation, but I understand where the bullpen chatter is coming from.
loved Ram-Ram
and de la Rosa was terrible for the Royals, but with hindsight, it would be great to have a mulligan on that trade — he’d be a good #3 or maybe #2 starter
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 30, 2009 1:51 AM EST up reply actions
I Remember JDLR
Having the exact same problems as Hiram. Great stuff, shaky control and trouble getting through the 5th inning. Hiram deserves another shot since ‘10 will not be a good year for us, but I wouldn’t hesitate to make him the first option out of the pen if we can cobble together decent 4 and 5 starters. No more Tomkos and Ponsons, please.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 30, 2009 3:37 AM EST up reply actions
As a Royal, JDLR was topping out as a LOOGY
At the time, both his curve and change were not very good, so he had problems with right-handed hitters (and unfortunately, the majority of hitters are right-handed).
After the trade, the Rockies gave him a new change up (or did something with the pitch) because it suddenly became a very good pitch. He also started throwing his slider more, and it went from a decent pitch to a true weapon.
The move to the NL also helped imeasurably (and facing the Padres and Giants 25% of the time) — without the DH, pitchers with poor control and command get a pretty good boost. I am not sure JDLR could maintain his NL results back in the AL, but he has become a different pitcher away from the Royals.
by Gopherballs on Dec 30, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
I liked JDLR
He had a good lefty arm and I thought he’d at least be an effective reliever. I remember that shortly before he was traded, I was thinking that he should be a possible 5th starter or at least a reliever with genuine upside. And that’s exactly how I feel about Davies. That doesn’t mean that Davies will pan out like JDLR has, but there is reason to be optimistic about his usefulness.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 6:22 AM EST up reply actions
Younger than Davies?
OK – Technically that’s true. But not by much. Davies was born on 09/09/1983, and Zack was born on 10/21/1983 (according to the Royals’ website). That’s basically the same age to me.
BTW – Hoch was born on 09/15/1983.
Tension is the enemy. - Charlie Lau
by aHorseWithNoName on Dec 29, 2009 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
I suppose I see the point
It seems like an odd way of putting it. I mean, everybody was a year younger last year.
Tension is the enemy. - Charlie Lau
by aHorseWithNoName on Dec 29, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
so that means that Hoch and Hiram have Cy Young seasons?
I love it!
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Compete for the 5th starter job, but probably bullpen
I think Davies would do well in the bullpen, but I think he should be in the mix for the 5th (6th, 7th) SP job.
The immoderate moderator
Hiram Is No
Randy Johnson, but Johnson is one of the best examples of potential finally being realized at age 29. The change is his stat line from ‘92 to ’93 was ridiculous. Johnson had such a huge upside that Seattle was willing to wait for him to come around, and it paid off in a big way. Hiram will more likely sink or swim on another MLB roster in a few years, but sending him to the pen for now seems reasonable. His kryptonite seems to be BB’s and pitch count, so we should be able to see if he improves on this as a middle reliever. It’s not like we have such a great pen (Jamey) now, so he would fill a need in the pen until we can make a decision on him.
Now if we decide to do something else with Soria…………
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
no on Soria
We saw his effectiveness wear off in the two inning stints…
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Really? Did you even look at the numbers in his stints of longer than 1 IP?
In appearances longer than 1 IP:
2-0, 7 Sv, 1 BS, 1 ND
in 19 IP: 20 Ks, 7 BBs, 14 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 1 HR, 2 HBPs
That translates to a 0.95 ERA, 1.11 WHIP, 1.05 K/9, 2.86 K/BB
Those numbers are better than his “regular” numbers.
by AxDxMx on Dec 30, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And if you want to go purely 2 inning stints
He gave up 1 run, got a win, and 5 saves in 12 IP, even better than his stats for 1 1/3 to 2.
I think Davies' fate actually depends a lot on whether Hoch progresses at all in 2010
For now, the front end of the Royals rotation is pretty much locked up with Greinke, Meche, and Banny (presuming Meche and Banny are fine after their injuries last season). Hoch, Davies, Tejeda, Lerew, and probably some other awful pitching chum will be in the mix for the 4 and 5 spots, but people have also been saying that it is time for Hoch to be moved to the ‘pen as well. If Hoch were to be converted into a reliever, I think you’d have to give Davies one more shot in the rotation, if for no other reason than the thought of “Your #4 starting pitcher for the Kansas City Royals, Anthony Lerew” is liable to kill old people out of shock.
For me, Davies should go to the pen before Hochevar.
Hochevar’s three gems from last season show a high ceiling and I haven’t seen that from Davies (that I can remember).
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Davies need a therapist
The dude gets all red-faced and tight-jawed when things aren’t going well. He heaves the ball like a rock thrown at the window of an abandoned house instead of pitching. You can see when he reaches that point. His eyes get all maniacal and he looks like he wants to punch somebody. Temper tantrums work for a lot of pitchers, they don’t work for our boy Kyle. Somebody – maybe Zack – needs to teach him how to breath through his eyelids or some shit.
Give him one more chance
in the rotation. If it doesn’t work after 6-8 starts, stick him in the bullpen, where he’ll certainly do much better, put up some decent numbers, and then try to trade him at the break or next off-season. We can’t afford more than one reliever making more than $1.5 million or so, and that’s Black Jack.
It's pronounced Poo-ZHOLS in Catalan.
Bullpen
It seemed like everytime I watched him he would get through the lineup once pretty good, but after they got a 2nd look he would start getting shelled. I think he can go full bore for two innings and be more effective than pacing himself out over 6-7 innings+.
Start him I guess.
I think he would be more valuable in the pen, but we are not going anywhere near the playoffs in 2010, so might as well save Hoochevar’s service clock and start Davies out there then send him to the pen when Hoochevar joins the team if no one is injured.
Go Royals!
use him in the bullpen and as an emergency starter
seems like a JP Howell candidate — tightening things up with the different experience that comes with pitching in relief (throwing harder, only seeing each batter once per game, etc). if he really shines, trade him or bring him back to the rotation (then trade him).
Well, um, actually a pretty nice little Saturday, we're going to go to Home Depot...buy some wallpaper, maybe get some flooring, stuff like that. Maybe Bed, Bath & Beyond, I don't know...I don't know if we'll have enough time.
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Dec 29, 2009 7:58 PM EST reply actions
Rotation
Locks (in my opinion)
Greinke
Meche
Bannister
Likely
Hochevar
Maybe’s
Davies
Tejeda
Campillo
I think you have to put Hochevar in the rotation. By the best measures of pitcher performance, he’s been pretty good already and he could get better. That leaves one rotation spot for three or more pitchers to fight over. None of them are clearly the best. Davies has had his moments, along with failure. Tejeda has had his moments as a good SP, along with a good deal of failure in his career. Campillo projects to be a decent fifth starter. I wouldn’t necessarily rule any of them out of the rotation. Nor do I think any one of them is a clearly choice for the fifth spot. Let’s see who is healthy and has good stuff in late March.
The immoderate moderator
you want Hoch in from opening day?
I’m not a huge fan of service time gaming, but when a player hasn’t really earned it, I think its relevant
Just wonder if doing it twice wouldn't end any hopes of resigning him
were he to become worthy of a deal.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Good point
I’m in for all of the service time gambits that are in the club’s interest. But once he’s been down long in the minors long enough, then my rotation would be:
Grenke
Meche
Bannister
Hochevar
One of those guys
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 6:24 AM EST up reply actions
service time
Who cares about service time if you are questioning if they are good enough to keep on the team? If he is worthy, put him on the team. If not don’t, but it should be pure performance. Hoch as shown some moments of brilliance, but mostly hasn’t lived up to the high pick (and in all reality shouldn’t have been taken that high in the first place).
Davies should stay as a starter, probably as #3 or 4. He had a lot of success at the beginning of 2009 as the #3 guy. Possibly Meche, Greinke, Davies, Hoch, Banny. Davies had a rocky 2009, but you really can’t say Tejeda or Campillo have outpitched him. I will say this is a put up or shut up year for Davies.
Tejeda has pitched circles around Davies
Good things happen when a pitcher, like Tejeda, gets swings and misses on more than 10% of his pitches thrown and limits line drives.
Davies just has not been a very good pitcher. His numbers last year were basically in line with his career numbers — he strikes out less than an average starter but is one of the worst in the league at surrendering walks (and thus has one of the worst K/BB rates). A heavy groundball pitcher might be able to get away with that profile, but Davies has been a flyball pitcher throughout his career. Davies has pitched a few good games here and there, but his performance over all 500+ innings is what matters.
I could live with that
Though I think Tejeda is almost certainly a lock. His 2008 FIP was 3.95 and he got better in 2009 with a 3.60. It’s kind of hard to ignore that. Tejeda looks like he’s figured something out. He can at least be a #4/#5, even if he backslides off those numbers pitching mostly as a starter. I think he’s more likely to be a starter than Hochevar with the service time issue.
Tejeda
I don’t know how Moore or Hillman feel about him, but IMO he shouldn’t be a lock for the rotation. He was really good in 2008, but that was almost entirely reliever innings, and we’re only talking about 45 innings, so there is a sample size issue. He looked good in 2009 as a starter, but that was only 6 starts. That being said, I like Tejeda. His career tRA+ as a starter is at about the #4/#5 SP level, so I wouldn’t mind him in the rotation at all. However, I do think that he’s a better reliever. And if the Royals can get similarly competent starting pitching out of Davies or Campillo, then I’d like to have Tejeda in the pen as Soria’s #1 setup man.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 6:32 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, Tejeda has shown that he can be an effective reliever
so giving him another shot in the rotation makes sense — if it does not work out (and there is still a good chance it does not given his poor control and flyball tendencies), the Royals already know they have a decent reliever for mid to high leverage situations. Tejeda has a decent change up to throw to lefty hitters and an effective slider to throw to righties, so he at least has a fighting chance to stick in the rotation.
by Gopherballs on Dec 30, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
What might his 2010 trade value be as a reliever?
Giving him another shot as a starter in the hopes he realizes upside is a low-percentage play, which (as others have mentioned) is a no-harm, no foul proposition on what will likely be a 95-loss 2010 club. I’m in favor of that.
However, since he is unlikely to evolve into a starter worth at least paying an arb-level price (much less one with trade value), what about using his “good stuff” in 1- to 2-inning set-up roles, having a greater chance of watching him excel, and then hopefully flipping him before the deadline? Would that scenario be more likely? Obviously the haul would be substantially less than if he shows promise as a starter, but we’d at least get something for him. Set-up men always seem to move before the deadline and it would play to one of the few areas where GMDM has remotely approached competence: trading.
by chiefstatnut on Dec 29, 2009 8:46 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I think his trade value would be very low
He’s running low on team control years and he’s no longer dirt cheap. And he doesn’t have a track record of good results as a pitcher and almost no track record as a reliever at all. I think his only potential shot at developing decent trade value is if he had 40+ really good relief innings in July and some contender wanted him at the deadline. And still the return wouldn’t be great.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 6:35 AM EST up reply actions
whatever happened to putting propspects in the bullpen prior to letting them start anyways?
seems to me Baseball teams have gotten away from that line of thinking, letting guys cut their teeth before feeding them to the wolves.
I don't like that strategy
When a guy pitches out of the bullpen, he uses his best two pitches almost exclusively. He gets very little chance to use his third and fourth pitches in real game situations. He also doesn’t get experience learning how to pitch to major league batters the third and fourth time through the lineup when they’ve seen your stuff and you’re starting to lose velocity. I think those things are crucial for developing a starting pitcher.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 6:37 AM EST up reply actions
But on the other hand
Some young pitchers focus too much on their off speed pitches and don’t realize how good their fastball really is (Grienke). A good fastball located well is still one of the best pitches out there. It also might help his confidence, since he is more likely at first to have success in short relief outings than starts. Although I completely agree that a starter needs to be able to use his third and fourth pitches, so I think it really depends on how polished the prospect is. If he has solid command of all of his pitches and has proven that in the minors and you have an opening on your starting rotation then that is probably where he should be, but if his minor league record is more spotty, then beginning his career in the bullpen might do him some good.
by wt on Dec 30, 2009 9:17 AM EST up reply actions
For the Royals, this is known as the 5th inning:
He also doesn’t get experience learning how to pitch to major league batters the third and fourth time through the lineup when they’ve seen your stuff and you’re starting to lose velocity
Finances trump player development
There are pros and cons to using elite SPs as middle relievers, rather than as AAA starters. For guys who dominate AAA effortlessly but struggle to pitch effectively in The Show, it’s probably the best option developmentally. Problem is, the team has a strong financial incentive to keep such players in AAA, to avoid running their service-time clocks toward arbitration and free agency. Most teams appear to have concluded that the service-time savings outweighs any developmental benefit of starting SP prospects in the bullpen— with the Twins being a notable exception, at least before Liriano’s injury.
There's more there than finances
Keeping the SP prospect in AAA to develop rather than wasting him in the major league bullpen is about more than finances. A team only has 6 years of control over a player in the majors. A team gets a lot more value from a player if those 6 years are as a SP rather than wasting some of those years having that pitcher languish in the bullpen.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
But...
…isn’t that really a financial decision? The service clock is irrelevant if you have the money to lock ‘em up. The “value” you get from a starter is the same whether he’s arb-eligible or a free agent until you figure in the finances.
I’m talking about the value a team gets from a SP as opposed to a RP. If you’ve only got a player for 6 MLB seasons, then I’d rather have 6 SP seasons than 1-2 RP seasons and 4-5 SP seasons. Even if the early SP seasons aren’t great, they will still likely add more wins to the team than if the player were in the bullpen.
You are right that years of team control are less meaningful for the richest teams who can afford the big contract to extend a young player into his FA years. But, unless we’re talking about the Yankees, every team has a budget. The resources of every team are finite. Maximizing value is important for every organization.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
who cares what someone is worth to other teams.
Bottom line is we need guys to get outs and be great for us. I’ll trade 6 years of being a below average waste of a first round pick starter for 1-2 years in the bullpen and 4-5 of being a great starter. These guys need confidence, they need to see bigtime pitching (even if its the other teams) perfecting their craft. This is why you Usually dont want to start a Rookie QB from day one, because they need to see a vetern go about their craft.
We are NOT a farm team for the other teams, get out of the mentality. And BTW 6 years of below average SP is not worth more than 4-5 above average starting pitching.
And BTW 6 years of below average SP is not worth more than 4-5 above average starting pitching.
First of all, in terms of actual wins added, it probably is, depending on how far below average the SP is. But second and more importantly, I didn’t argue that it was. Why would this pitcher be a below average starter for all six years? Because he didn’t get the magical confidence of being in the pen he’s ruined forever? Develop the SP in the minors until he’s ready and then move him into the major league rotation. In addition to being the best way to develop a SP, that gives his team the most value for his six years. You don’t strike me as someone much moved by numbers, but I’ll throw some at you anyway. A good setup man rarely gives you more than about 1.0 Win Above Replacement (WAR) level for a season. A below average SP who pitches most of a season can still give you 1.5 WAR. So let’s compare two ways to use a good pitching prospect’s 6 MLB years of team control:
Year 1 SP 1.0 WAR
Year 2 SP 1.5 WAR
Year 3 SP 2.0 WAR
Year 4 SP 2.0 WAR
Year 5 SP 2.2 WAR
Year 6 SP 2.3 WAR
TOTAL 11.0 WAR
Year 1 RP 0.7 WAR
Year 2 RP 1.0 WAR
Year 3.SP 1.8 WAR
Year 4 SP 2.0 WAR
Year 5 SP 2.2 WAR
Year 6 SP 2.3 WAR
TOTAL 10.0 WAR
And the above assumed that those two years in the pen actually did a good job of developing the pitcher into a major league starter, which I frankly don’t buy. That works for some pitchers. I think it actually hinders the development of most SP prospects. Most pitching prospects aren’t like Greinke. Most pitching prospects don’t have excellent secondary pitches and just need to work on trusting their fastball. In those exceptional cases, it might be the thing to do. But they are, by definition, exceptions.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 31, 2009 3:05 AM EST up reply actions
Time in Minors Vs. Time in Majors
Time in AAA throwing to guys who have big flaws and can’t hit major league pitching is not the same as good major league hitters. So you would rather take a guy who can dominate AAA hitting and feed him to ML hitters who shatter any confidence he had. That is terrible logic.
Let them pitch to Major league hitters for a season out of the pen and actually have some success against good hitters. Furthermore the whole team doesnt have to go through all of the growing pains of a young pitcher trying to figure it out for a whole season.
Your stats are a moot point. Because you are assuming that starting a guy in the pen results in the same quailty of pitcher as starting him right away. Guys used to have be really good to start right away out of the minors. Now any guy projected to be a starter is thrown in there.
My biggest issue with you is the whole Service time and trade value. we are not trading baseball cards here. We are trying to develop good pitching and what a guys trade value could be later on shouldn’t even be in the same sentence. The fact you brought that up as a reason why not to start a guy out in the pen speaks volumes of your knowledge of how to develop pitchers.
Your argument in favor of developing SP prospects by putting them in the major league bullpen all boils down to confidence. You simply argue that building up a pitcher’s confidence in the bullpen is the best way to make him into a good MLB SP. My argument is that the vast majority of SP prospects need to work on their secondary pitches. The quality of those secondary pitches is the biggest obstacle to success for them. So, on the one hand, I have improving pitches and you have confidence. Do you really think that your guesswork about pitching prospect confidence (who has it, who doesn’t, when it gets hurt, how much it gets hurt and how much that affects a prospect) trumps the actual quality of his pitches? If so, that speaks volumes about your knowledge of pitching, which appears to be that of the average lunkheaded fan.
My biggest issue with you is the whole Service time and trade value. we are not trading baseball cards here. We are trying to develop good pitching and what a guys trade value could be later on shouldn’t even be in the same sentence.
My points were 1) using him as a SP (first in the minors and then in the majors) is the best way to develop a good MLB SP, and 2) this strategy gets the most value out of the pitcher for his team in those six years. I didn’t at any time mention trade value, so I have no idea what you are blathering on about.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 31, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Your guesswork would be good if only.....
Major league teams had never done exactly what i am saying. Putting prospects in the bullpen is not some new idea, sometimes they do it for a september call up, Sometimes a whole season. So it looks like perhaps their is some merit to what i am saying or else ML teams would have never done it. My point is that teams dont do it as much anymore, or atleast the royals dont seem to.
So i guess there is a rule in place that says you cant use your 3-4 pitches if you are a Major league releiver. Ever consider long relief apperances, you know like when a guy is getting blown out.
The value you are trying to get is by adding up WAR ratings, how dumb is that? im talking about winning games. We are not trying to see how of a WAR rating we get after 6 years! We are trying to get beter as a Team, Starting rookie starting pitchers guarentees you will have less of a chance to win in the games they start. Finding a way to lessen the learning curve should be a priority.
The First Word
In the acronym WAR is wins.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 31, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Major league teams had never done exactly what i am saying. Putting prospects in the bullpen is not some new idea, sometimes they do it for a september call up, Sometimes a whole season. So it looks like perhaps their is some merit to what i am saying or else ML teams would have never done it.
And they’ve also quite frequently done what I’m saying too. I’m not saying your preference for developing SP prospects is stupid. I’m saying I don’t think it is the best way.
My point is that teams dont do it as much anymore
There’s a reason for that.
So i guess there is a rule in place that says you cant use your 3-4 pitches if you are a Major league releiver.
I’m speaking to the reality of relief pitching. A pitcher in a major league game is going to do what is most effective in a situation. If you are starting, you’re going to need to use all of your pitches. If you’re relieving, you’ll get the best results by using your best pitch the vast majority of the time and then merely mix in a second and/or third pitch sparingly. That’s what relievers do.
The value you are trying to get is by adding up WAR ratings, how dumb is that? im talking about winning games.
As I pointed out in my first use of “WAR” above, and has others have pointed out, WAR is a performance measure showing how many WINS the player has added to the team.
! We are trying to get beter as a Team, Starting rookie starting pitchers guarentees you will have less of a chance to win in the games they start.
Really? A good SP prospect is going to give you less of a chance to win than the average #5 SP? The average #5 SP is a pretty poor pitcher. I’ll take the prospect with upside over just another #5 SP anytime.
Finding a way to lessen the learning curve should be a priority.
I agree. And there’s little reason to believe that bullpen work shortens the learning curve. Again, the argument is improved confidence (which is questionable) vs. improved pitches. Which would you rather have in a pitcher?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 31, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
Intangibles are all that matters
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 31, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Intanglibles and sports psychology will be the Sabermetrics of the 22nd century
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 31, 2009 6:46 PM EST up reply actions
GMDM is a visionary
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 31, 2009 8:55 PM EST up reply actions
WAR might be good for judging Major league players against each other
But when you are talking about developing a player there is just no way to know that his WAR is not better as a RP, than a SP in the first year. and furthermore whoever is the SP doesnt end up putting up a better WAR than the prospect would have.
So you you are not counting wins, you are taking a wild guess pulling numbers out of the air, to try and prove that starting a guy is better than putting him in the pen for a while.
So again, using WAR is moot, Because it is not talking about how best to develop a player, just what his worth is after he has played. So you are not talking about wins, you are talking about wins above replacement for someone who hasnt played yet.
Put Davies AND Hoch
in the pen where they belong. For Davies, this will be because this is where he most useful. For Hoch, this will help him work on things like it did for Zack. Sign another starter, and your pitching staff just got a lot better.
Hochevar can still be a starter
Send him to Omaha for a couple months to work on his craft.
By the time the Royals are ready to contend (probably 2012), Davies will be gone. The question with him, therefore, is how to maximize his value as a trade asset. I think giving him one last chance to stick as a starter is the way to go, but reasonable opinion can differ.
He cut down AAA hitters for fun
In his two stints last year. He probably really doesn’t have much more he can do there. He just has to sink or swim as an MLB starter, and if he sinks, slide him into the pen.
by kcbottom9th on Dec 30, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think Davies
is a good fit for the pen. He has this one night he’s on, the next he has nothing thing going. When you add in the inconsistency with his home run and walk rate, you are asking for trouble.
Greinke, Meche, Bannister, Tejeda, Davies, with Campillo in waiting if Davies goes in the tank. Hochevear to the minors. If nothing else , Hochevar proved that despite his stuff, he is not mentally ready to pitch in the majors.
There are good teams with worse 5th starters than Davies.
Is it safe?
Hochevar's mowed through AAA before, what's his benefit of doing it again?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
99 seems like a pretty good sample for Davies
to the pen with him. I don’t think Hoch is that bad really, he just needs a better defense behind him. Unfortunately for Hoch I doubt it is gonna get better for him. A change of scenery would probably do Hoch the most good but unfortunately his trade value isn’t much currently.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
off to the pen with Kyle
Davies has shown pretty good control in most of his starts…but only for 2-3 innings at a time, sounds like a great long reliever to me.
If the Royals aren’t going to pick up another starter in this slow market (still hoping and wishing for Bedard or maybe even Sheets), then Robby Tejeda deserves his shot in the rotation.
(Jason Kendall WILL return to 1999 form for the Royals in 2010….you bet)
I haven't seen Davies a lot
but a trip to the Pen could be just what he needs. I’m a Giants fan and last year we sent Jonathan Sanchez (another guy who had great stuff but no control) to the pen. Then an injury came up, Sanchez got a spot start and no hit the padres. Maybe a trip to the pen could motivate Davies.
Hoping for BowkerMania to hit AT&T Park in 2010
Hiram Needs To
Trust his stuff. Unfortunately, he wobbles between nibbling and leaving pitches in the middle of the plate. This is not uncommon, but it would not be uncommon for him to put it together at his age. We can afford to go either way with him next year, and he’s not costing a lot compared to the Pufessa.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 30, 2009 3:44 AM EST up reply actions
A move to the bullpen could force him to trust his stuff
because if you’re facing 3 hitters, you can’t nibble with the first 2.
Hoping for BowkerMania to hit AT&T Park in 2010
I am hopeful that KC opens up the 4th/5th starter during ST
Davies, Tejeda, and any other NRI who has potential like Campillo. Patience is needed for a guy like Davies who is only 26. I do think he would be effective in the bullpen where he would go right after the hitter and not nibble. The change of role would be good for him but starters are so valuable. For me, the only locks in rotation are Greinke, Meche and Hochevar. Luke has to succeed or fail as a starter.
Bannister – never sure about his health status. He’s our best 4th if healthy.
With the lack of success KC has had in the back end of the rotation – no guarantees for Davies, Tejeda, et. al. Osuna is a guy they sound like they want to take a look at as a starter.
They did that last year and we came away with Ponson and HoRam
of course, I don’t really think the other guys had a shot, management just said they did.
Better than Yuni
But we need to set our sights higher than that.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 30, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
I think we have to start the season like this in the rotation.
Grienke
Meche
Hochevar
Bannister
Davies
But how often are we going to use that 5th starter early in the year? To me Banni is more of a question than Hochevar.
I think we have to go with those five for at least 10 starts a piece. Then we go from there…
Hopefully they all work better this year after watching Grienke’s Cy Young year and having the “Kendall” effect.
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
