Neal Musser No More - Royals Release Left-Hander

by royalsreview on Feb 27, 2009 5:55 PM EST in News Comment 42 comments

Nothing like an obscure Friday afternoon roster move found buried in a DK story about noted master sleuth John Bale's health problems:

The Royals announced on Friday that left-handed pitcher Neal Musser has cleared waivers and was released. He was designated for assignment on Feb. 19.
Musser pitched in each of the last two seasons for the Royals. He had a 0-1 record in 18 relief outings with a 4.21 ERA.

And so ends Musser's two-plus years of employment with the Royals. He was unhittable at AAA in 2007 (0.49 ERA) and decent in the minors last season. And he's left-handed and still in his twenties, seems like a guy you'd try to keep around, although maybe he didn't want to stay. I fully admit that I haven't followed Neal Musser as closesly as I would have liked to the last eighteen months.

Of course, the Royals are loaded in the bullpen, thanks to awesome deals like the ones that brought in Farnsworth and Waechter, so really all this is irrelevant.

0 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Seemed like he had a chance to become a decent LOOGY

And a million bucks cheaper than Gobble without the baggage of a sucky 2008. Oh well. Godspeed Neal Musser. He really does owe his career to Allard Baird who plucked him off waivers from the Diamondbacks where he was a struggling starter, and made him a pretty solid LOOGY.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 27, 2009 8:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

not to overblow ths

but this is precisely the kind of thing that all the sudden moore seems to mismanage

now granted, musser is probably worse than Nunez, but he could have been cheap and certainly compares well with a number of options currently employed by the team

I wanna know what love is, I want you to show me

by LeoBloom on Feb 27, 2009 8:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It seems oddly wasteful to me as well.

I expect Musser would be well above replacement level out of a major league bullpen. I do not expect he would make the 25-man roster but he is a great guy to have for depth. If he was at all willing to pitch in Omaha I would have been happy to see the Royals give him a nice MiLB contract (say $100K) and encouraged him to stick with the organization.

Oh well, I’ll just throw it in that pile of decisions marked “WTF Moore?”

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 1, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He looks very much like a replacement level pitcher to me

These are his career AAA numbers:

7.2 K/9
4.0 K/9
0.8 K/9

And his peripherals, overall aren’t improving. His K’s have gone up, but his walks and home runs are way up. In two of his last three AAA seasons, he’s had an FIP over 5. PECOTA projects him to have a 5.62 ERA in 2009 with peripherals to match. I don’t know that Musser was necessarily the best guy for Moore to DFA, but Musser is no better than just another replacement level middle reliever, and a 28-year-old one to boot.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 1, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reasons to like Musser

Musser has done very well in Omaha these last two years. If you just look at 2007 and 2008 his numbers in 111.1 innings are 79 hits, 48/111 BB/K, 2.43 ERA. He only is 27 years old, so he is not so long in the tooth. These last two years seem more likely to be a new norm for him rather than a hot streak. Plus when he was up with the Royals he certainly pitched much better than replacement level. Small sample size granted.

Anyway, I don’t think Musser was likely to be an impact pitcher at the top level in 2009, but he certainly seems above replacement level to me. I’d put him below Mahay, Gobble and Bale on the lefty bullpen depth chart, but not much below those three. Is he less valuable than DiNardo, Yabuta, HoRam and Bruce Chen (signed today)? Maybe. I can certainly think of scenarios in which he could step up and help the team this year.

You know me, I pull for the grinder. And Musser is a grinder. Maybe the Royals have moved past the "cheer for the grinder" stage. That would be nice, but will take a little getting used to.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 1, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Musser has done very well in Omaha these last two years. If you just look at 2007 and 2008 his numbers in 111.1 innings are 79 hits, 48/111 BB/K, 2.43 ERA. He only is 27 years old, so he is not so long in the tooth. These last two years seem more likely to be a new norm for him rather than a hot streak.

But I really don’t think his last two years were good. 2007 was very good, but it looks like something of an outlier. 2008 was not good. It was actually a poor season. I think defense independent stats are more telling than a stat like ERA.

2006 5.60 FIP
2007 2.50 FIP
2008 5.15 FIP
(per fangraphs)

The walks and HR’s really kill his defense independent stats. And this is in AAA. I wouldn’t expect him to be better in the majors. Considering the walks, his HR tendencies and the fact that he likely wouldn’t get quite as many K’s in majors, I can’t imagine him being better than replacement level.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 1, 2009 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if you have a more exagerated idea of what replacement level is than I do.

A few years back I seem to remember replacement level for relievers being something in the low six ERA range.

And I suggest you are relying more on projections of what Musser’s past performance was supposed to be like and less on what his past performance actually was like. He was very solid in 2008 if you use his actual numbers and not projections. Who knows, maybe he was just lucky for two straight seasons. I expect it is more likely that whatever projection method you are drawing from does not seem to understand how Musser works. But who knows.

Anyway, it is a moot point. He is no more.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 1, 2009 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Easy replacement level for relievers

in MLB is a FIPor ERA either around 107% of lgERA, or some people think lgavg is replacement level for relievers.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Mar 1, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW, ERA for replacement level relief pitcher in 2008

I found this formula for roughly calcuating what a replacement level ERA woud be in any given year:

For relief pitchers, Repl. Level = 1.70 * League RA – 2.27

That means a replacement level relief pitcher in the American League last year would have had an ERA of about 5.7

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 2, 2009 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Musser might be able to manage that

PECOTA puts him around there. His increasing inability to throw strikes is a concern though.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2009 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, Musser DID accomplish that.

He had an ERA of 4.2 in 18 major league games. Small sample size I know. We don’t have to use PECOTA or any other projection tool. Everything about his actual performance clearly shows he was a better than replacement level pitcher over the last two years. Which I thought was what you were disagreeing with when we started this whole discussion.

So I guess we have ended up in agreement. Musser is better than replacement level. Which makes me wonder if Moore didn’t make a mistake in giving him his walking papers.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 2, 2009 12:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How you spin this into us being in agreement is beyond me, and quite bizarre

The disagreement started with me saying that he looks very much like a replacement level pitcher to me. You think he’s likely much better than replacement level. It appears that we are still in disagreement. His most meaningful stats and his PECOTA projection point to him being merely a replacement level pitcher.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is that from Baseball Between the Numbers?

that’s a really low replacement level

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Mar 2, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If he got that from BBtN, then he should look up what that books says about how predictive ERA is

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2009 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No D-F,

It was actually from Wiki of all places. Link here. That ERA was actually a bit lower than numbers I remember seeing a few years back, but that might have been the replacement ERA for all pitchers, not just for relievers. Or, I could have simply remembered in higher than it actually was. That happens sometimes.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 2, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't ripping on BBTN, just wondering, because it looks like what is remembers

I think it’s the same, as the wikipedia entry uses Woolner’s version of VORp as its basis.

I’m pretty sure they’re using RA instead of ERA there, though, so (and I have no stake in the Musser debate), you should probably be using Musser’s RA rather than his ERA if that’s the stat you want to go with.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Mar 2, 2009 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What do you think is a more meaningful descriptor of a pitcher's actual performance?

ERA or FIP/tRA?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh man, I reallly want to stay out of this, but speaking strictly about stats.

I’d have to say (for me, a nonexpert) it’s FIP or tRA or some other DIPS that i don’t know about. I think this is especially true for relievers, given the small sample sizes of their performance.

Of course, it’s true that there are pitchers who seem to fall through the cracks of DIPS stuff — e..g, J. Vazquez seems to (although I think this is a bit exaggerated given Chicago’s OF defense the last few years, and his ERA was very good in 2007 anyway)… Seems like there are some others that I can’t think of. I don’t even think that groundballers per se are an exception, since FIP will account for their not giving up homers or walking people excessively (if they’re good). and tRA takes it a step further by accounting for the run expectancy of the different kinds of batted balls.

Anyway, that’s the long answer that you guys already know. I prefer FIP, etc., although like everyone I acknowledge that there are exceptions.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Mar 2, 2009 1:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d have to say (for me, a nonexpert) it’s FIP or tRA or some other DIPS that i don’t know about. I think this is especially true for relievers, given the small sample sizes of their performance.

And I’m not an expert either. But you and I both read the experts. And the experts don’t rely on ERA when evaluating pitchers. They rely on metrics like FIP, xFIP, tRA, etc. If the best in the sabermetric community don’t think ERA is particularly meaningful, I don’t think we should either. And this isn’t like we’re just blindly following the “experts.” There are good reasons to go with the defense independent pitching stats, which have been studied and tested over and over. This is what I’ve been trying to tell JQ. The idea that a stat like ERA trumps these other measures is antiquated and has been roundly rejected.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2009 1:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it does use RA

but it claims to calculate ERA.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 2, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

now my head hurts

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Mar 2, 2009 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

First, replacement level, as D_F points out isn’t as bad as you describe it. Second, I’m not looking at projections. I’m looking at defense independent stats. Those don’t project; they describe reality and do so in a more meaningful way than ERA. So no, he really wasn’t solid in 2008. When you give up that many walks and HR’s, you’re not pitching well.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 1, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

FIP is a projection. A projection of what results a pitcher supposedly should have had.

ERA is a record of actual results.

In terms of actual results it is clear to me that Musser pitched well in 2008. I know FIP doesn’t explain why this happened, but it did.

You may not understand why Musser pitched well for two consecutive years any better than does the FIP system, but he did.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 2, 2009 12:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s all a matter of interpretation, but it isn’t really a projection. It’s a description of the most meaningful stats. FIP is made of up K, BB and HR. Those tell you about the pitcher without extraneous elements like the defense behind him. ERA is a record of the pitcher’s performance plus defense, plus batted ball luck (good or bad). It even includes, to some extent, the quality of the pitchers that come in behind him when he leaves the game with runners on.

In short, the sabermetric community is strongly of the opinion that defense independent metrics isolate the pitcher’s actual performance much better than ERA. They are more descriptive of what the pitcher actually did, apart from his team’s defense, etc. Basically it appears that you are arguing that ERA trumps other stats. If he ended up with a good ERA, then he pitched well, no matter what other stats tell you. I think this is exceptionally poor statistical analysis which the sabermetric community has rejected, and for good reason.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2009 12:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand what FIP is supposed to do.

But the definition of “projection” is not a matter of interpretation. It is simply a matter of a definition. FIP is in no way a description of statics, it is a projection tool which is supposed to tell us how many runs a guy with certain set of statitics should give up if he had a completetly average defense behind him and had completely average luck.

Anyway, FIP clearly has not done a good job projecting Musser’s performance in the past, and so it probably should not be the first thing we use to determine how he will do in the future.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 2, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But the definition of "projection" is not a matter of interpretation. It is simply a matter of a definition

Right and that is why FIP and tRA are not described or defined as “projections.” PECOTA, ZiPS, CHONE, and Marcel are projections. FIP and tRA are not.

FIP is in no way a description of statics, it is a projection tool which is supposed to tell us how many runs a guy with certain set of statitics should give up if he had a completetly average defense behind him and had completely average luck.

No, that is a misinterpretation and a misunderstanding of FIP and tRA. They are both advanced metrics that use defense independent statistics (like BB, K and HR…and other batted ball data in the case of tRA) to isolate a pitcher’s actual performance, independent of extraneous factors.

Anyway, FIP clearly has not done a good job projecting Musser’s performance in the past, and so it probably should not be the first thing we use to determine how he will do in the future.

[Sigh] FIP doesn’t project anything. It tells you how good he is, and not his defense or other pitchers in his bullpen. With those walks and HR’s, he hasn’t been pitching well for two of the last three years (including 2008). Your argument that ERA trumps everything else because it is the true result stat wasn’t even state of the art thinking in the 1980’s. I think statistical analysis has progressed far beyond that.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This is pointless

You are just playing word games. Words have definitions.

And what is this [sigh] crap? That is pretty condecending.

www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Mar 2, 2009 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not condescension, just frustration

Yes, projection has a definition. The problem is that you are describing metrics like FIP and tRA as projections when they are not. The creators of those metrics don’t describe them as projections. No one who uses them describes them as projections. The reason is that they don’t project anything.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 2, 2009 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

GMDM cleaning house of all of Allard's acquisitions

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Feb 27, 2009 10:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Gotta have a room to let Russ Ortiz suck in

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.

by devil_fingers on Feb 27, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DFAing Musser seems strange

I thought he’d be a fair lefty out of the pen if given any extended shot. Oh well, nothing much to see here.

Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.

by NHZ on Feb 27, 2009 11:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not sure why exactly we'd dump this guy

but keep Gobble Gobble around.

Fourth to First

by kabrink on Feb 27, 2009 11:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

and sign Farnsworth?

Yeah, I know.

Stathead, Zack Greinke fan, and Rock Band 2 singer extraordinaire.

by NHZ on Feb 28, 2009 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

KC has Dinardo, Dusty Hughes in Omaha and a full roster of lefties in KC

when you consider Bale, Yimmy, Mahay, HoRam there was really no need for Musser. Musser wasn’t needed on this team this year and the pitching roster should be very strong next year in Omaha. It’s best for Musser to look for a job somewhere else.

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.

by kcscoliny on Feb 28, 2009 12:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

trust me

I’m not complaining too much. But, I’d rather keep him for pennies on the dollar than what we’re paying Gobble.

Fourth to First

by kabrink on Feb 28, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hulett

He was DFA to make room for Tug Hulett. I really like Hulett, I think he should be considered for the second base job. His minor league numbers are great and he was never given much of a chance in Seattle. To me it seems like Hulett for Musser is an excellent swap. I won’t miss Musser at all, but I hope he will catch on somewhere else.

I see this as a good roster management move by Moore, adding depth and talent at a position of need. Musser obviously had no trade value since he wasn’t even claimed on waivers.

by sfeldkamp on Feb 28, 2009 9:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs