Royals Review: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

The Numbers Are In: What Do the Projections Say About the Royals' Rotation in 2009?

So, yeah, I'm supposed to be working on some "So what is..." posts for the Stat Glossary, but I don't really work here, so I'll get to it in my own sweeet time. And, yes, I should really be working on, you know, work, but whatever.

Anyway, I recently did an article at Driveline Mechanics (where I actually "work") ostensibly about how good the 2009 Oakland As' rotation is projected to be. Given recent discussions here about newer stats as well as comparing the As and the Royals in 2009.

This isn't the first time I've done something like this, but (I ope) I've learned a lot since my conversions of the Bill James Projections, I hope, and we now have the numbers in from the best projection systems: Sean Smith's CHONE, Dan Szymborski's ZiPS, and Nate Silver's PECOTA. So, using FIP as my go-to stat for the sake of this post, let's see what the projection systems say. Who knows, maybe this can get the horse trotting towards revising our initial projection (based primarily on CHONE).

Star-divide

If you want to read all about the metholody in-depth, check out the first part of my post at Driveline. In short, here are some "highlights":

  • I use Baseball Prospectus' playing time estimates. No, they aren't perfect, but the ones for the Royals actually are pretty close to our own earlier community projection, anyway, and we can avoid "fan bias," at least.
  • I not use Pythagorean win% against league average performance to determine replacement level. .500 is average, obviously. For starters, replacement level is generally .380.
  • Replacement level is adjusted for the superior talent in the AL. For starters in the Al, replacement level is .370.
  • Projected League Average ERA for 2009 is 4.45, derived by way of a weighted average (I think it may be a bit better than that, but the numbers say what they will).
  • When calculating WAR, (crude) adjustments are made to be on a RA rather than ERA scale to be more accurate and make sure that pitchers aren't undervalued vis-a-vis position players.
  • Furthermore, runs-to-wins conversion is "customized" for each pitcher since they set up their own run environment, this accounts for each run be more/less valuable for good or bad pitchers.

Remember -- these aren't my playing time or FIP projections, PT is from Baseball Prospectus, and the FIP is the average of the FIP posted at FanGraphs for CHONE and ZiPS, and the FIP I calculated from the PECOTA spreadsheet... so away we go. "RAR" is Runs Above Replacement; "WAR" is Wins Above Replacement.

 

 

Player CHONE ZiPS PECOTA FIP IP Win% RAR WAR
Gil Meche 3.97 3.97 4.14 4.03 195 .542 33.5 3.4
Zack Greinke 3.9 3.98 3.87 3.92 190 .558 35.7 3.6
Brian Bannister 4.69 4.91 4.86 4.82 160 .464 15 1.4
Kyle Davies 4.83 4.99 4.98 4.93 140 .453 11.6 1.1
Luke Hochevar 4.83 4.99 4.62 4.81 140 4.64 13.2 1.2
Horacio Ramirez 4.11 4.35 4.71 4.39 60 .506 8.2 0.8
Ho-Ram 5.11 5.35 5.71 5.39 60 .413 2.6 0.2
Brandon Duckworth 4.36 5.24 4.93 4.84 60 .461 5.5 0.5
Carlos Rosa 4.72 4.13 4.76 4.54 25 .491 3.0 0.3

 

Not too many surprises here. Yes, we can argue about Zack/ch/qq if we want, but remember that projections regress towards the mean. Meche and Greinke come off as good #2 pitchers who are also very durable. After that, well, like we thought, Bannister, Davies, and Hochevar all look like #4 pitchers in 2009 to the projection systems (CHONE and ZiPS being exactly the same re: Davies and Hochevar is sort of a funny coincidence).

What's up with Ho-Ram? He looks like a kick-ass deal all of the sudden, a #3 starter at a #5 price... well, the numbers are what they are, but I can't help but think they're a bit influenced by this time in 'pen last season. So I also listed a "Ho-Ram," where I added 1 to his FIP. Hey, I know it's speculative, and it would be awesoe if he was as good as the raw numbers in the projections suggest -- he'd better get more than 60 innings then, and much faith in Dayton Moore would be restored. Here's hoping, but hope in one hand...

So how does it all add up? I'll leave Ho-Ram's numbers unaltered here so that we can all feel good about it and I don't seem like the biased jerk that I really am.

 

 

Player WAR Value Salary Surplus
Gil Meche 3.4 $15.93 $11.00 $4.93
Zack Greinke 3.6 $17.12 $3.75 $13.37
Brian Bannister 1.4 $6.95 $1.74 $5.21
Kyle Davies 1.1 $5.44 $1.30 $4.14
Luke Hochevar 1.2 $6.17 $2.20 $3.97
Horacio Ramirez 0.8 $4.09 $1.80 $2.29
Brandon Duckworth 0.5 $2.80 $0.65 $2.15
Carlos Rosa 0.3 $1.75 $0.43 $1.32
Total 12.4 $60.27 $22.87 $37.40

[NB: All dollar values are millions. I've taken the dollar value of each WAR in 2009 to be $4.62 million on the basis of Colin Wyers' finding that the cost was $4.2 million in 2008 and assuming the general 10% annual inflation of that salary + $0.4 M replacement player salary.  It seems too early to say for sure how to adjust for the new economic climate, and it's better to adjust too little than too much... Note also that this just notes the value of the contracts as if they were free agent contracts. to correctly get a read on how "good" they are, we need to take into account which are signed pre-FA or pre-arb, which reduces their value. I had to guess at some, like Ducky's and Rosa's.]

 

12.4 Wins Above Replacement, or ~$60M of performance for ~$23M. $37.4M. Not bad. Keep in mind that most of those contracts are pre-FA or pre-arb, of course. No, you probably don't care about David Glass's wallet, and I don't either. But as I said else where, the real currency of baseball isn't pitching. It isn't outs. It isn't runs. It isn't even wins, although that's the closest. The real currency of baseball is currency. That's how you buy runs and wins.

How about a little comparison between the As and Royals? Believe it or not, Dana Eveland has the best projected FIP (3.82) of all the pitchers, and the highest win% (.569). Greinke is second, then Justin Duchsherer, then Ol' Gil. On the other hand, playing time matters, and Meche and Greinke are projected to have more innings pitched. Sean Gallagher is projected as perfectly league average, and better overall than anyone else in the Royals rotation except if Ho-Ram is Super-Ho-Ram and gets a bunch of innings.

The Royals get the overall nod, though, with 12.4 projected WAR for 2009, compared to the As 11.7. Almost a win... but the Royals are paying $23M for all of those pitchers, while the As are paying about $7M. The Royals have better players (barely, and counting on Ho-Ram being very un-HoRamlike), but the As are paying a lot less. For better or worse (and I don't think the Royals are overspending on their starters overall), that's what the concept of "Moneyball" is all about.

5 recs  |  Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

So basically Bannister is Ducky

with more Innings pitched. That’s good to know.

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

by kcscoliny on Mar 10, 2009 1:44 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Who is this second Ho-Ram?

I was under the impression that Horacio Ramirez was Ho-Ram. A second HoRam behind the grassy knoll

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

by kcscoliny on Mar 10, 2009 1:45 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

also

Banny is a father now. He has a new perspective. He’s more focused/relaxed. His wife’s breasts are larger.

Please add 3.7 to his WAR total.

by royalsreview on Mar 10, 2009 1:46 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Wow my wife has pretty large breast

What is my WAR value?

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

by kcscoliny on Mar 10, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

the formula is

170% of your previous WAR I think, but only is added perspective has somehow been gained

by royalsreview on Mar 10, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No wonder

guys like LimaTime and Tomko have last so long. I never knew the breasts played into it.

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

by kcscoliny on Mar 10, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

you guys are about to make me choke on my lunch

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

by devil_fingers on Mar 10, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Great stuff

The Royals get the overall nod, though, with 12.4 projected WAR for 2009, compared to the As 11.7. Almost a win… but the Royals are paying $23M for all of those pitchers, while the As are paying about $7M. The Royals have better players (barely, and counting on Ho-Ram being very un-HoRamlike), but the As are paying a lot less. For better or worse (and I don’t think the Royals are overspending on their starters overall), that’s what the concept of “Moneyball” is all about.

I don’t think any team flies a “Most Efficient Payroll” banner at the end of the year. If you’re saying our rotation is better than Oakland’s, well, that gets me all tingly about the season.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 10, 2009 2:10 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That's where the difference betwen pre-arb, arb, and FA years come in

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

by devil_fingers on Mar 10, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course, a lot of that depends on Ho-Ram being a league average picher for 60 innings as a starter.

The Royals pitching staff isn’t overpaid as a whole, but it is subsidizing plenty of inefficiency among the position players (Guillen, Gload, Jacobs [only the Royals could end up getting fucked over in an arb negotiation by Mike Jacobs]) and, of course, Farnsworth.

Marginal dollars are about as scarce for the As and the Royals. Would you rather the have your starters “subsidizing” Jose Guillen and Kyle Farnsworth’s horrible contracts, or Matt Holliday’s decent one?

That’s another issue, of course. With respect to the As, one point is simply that people were just asserting that the Royals were “obviously” better. WEll, they’re actually barely better, at $14M more. So let’s not go nuts. I think there is a clear difference in position players, I wonder who that favors?

A more efficient payroll indicates a GM who understands player value properly and how to maximize a budget, and that’s what leads to the banner that does matter — a divisional/league/WS title.

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

by devil_fingers on Mar 10, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

rec'd in effect

this posts a rumpshaker

by marbotty on Mar 10, 2009 2:39 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I am interested in a universalized continuum of HoRamlike/unHoRamlike.

I think this could be useful in judging all pitchers. It is sad though, when used in the namesake case, that the pitcher is most effective when he is unlike himself. You should copyright this measurement system d_f.

by Steve Hovley on Mar 10, 2009 6:42 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

hey, if Baseball Prospectus can (allegedly) threaten a lawsuit over "B" and "P"...

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

by devil_fingers on Mar 10, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just a note

I’ve made a preliminary decision to do a division-by-division series of these posts for Driveline, and I’m in the process of updating my spreadsheet with park factors, more precise run environment adjustments in general, better scaling for FIP/RA, etc. I’ve made preliminary passes at both OAK and KC, and the difference is now 1.5 Wins in KC’s favor, primarily due to adding in park factors, although I still think Ho-Ram’s projections might be thrown off…

I’m sure you’re all breathing a sigh of relief.

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

by devil_fingers on Mar 10, 2009 11:14 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

heh

my revised project-a-tron has KC even further in front

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

by devil_fingers on Mar 11, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Great work

Does this mean I should feel good about having Eveland on my “Baseball on a Budget” team?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 11, 2009 3:46 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Yes

Although the revised version of my spreadsheet (I’m hopefully going to go division by division [although without the money aspect) doing this for all of the MLB for the next three or so weeks at Driveline) says he’s “only” a 3 WAR pitcher in 2009. Can’t go wrong at ~$0.440M (I think).

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

by devil_fingers on Mar 11, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, my personal projection (using CHONE and my best guess of his actual playing time) had him at 2.9 WAR. Certainly a good value. I have a pretty good rotation, but they may well go over the IP limit. But you do have to expect injuries, especially when my sixth starter is Rich Harden (PECOTA has him at 190 ip? WTF?).

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 11, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Theoretically

shouldn’t left-handed pitchers have worse overall numbers since they largely face right-handed batters? I’ve wondered if this is why HoRam has put up such terrible numbers. First, if this is true, why would you want a mediocure lefty in the starting rotation? Wouldn’t he be better suited as a situational reliever?? I just don’t understand why DM is so insistant on having a lefty in the starting rotation. Especially when the front-runner for that spot is Horacio Ramirez!!

Secondly, can anyone explain why a five-man rotation is so standard? If you arguably have two aces at the top, why can’t you have those two on a set rotation for maximum starts and rotate the other three spots with four or five other pitchers for strategic leverage? Is the difference between “starter” and “reliever” that definitive?

by FretFriendly on Mar 13, 2009 12:23 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I fully agree that there’s no particular benefit to having a LHP starter. Most batters are right handed, so it actually hurts to have a lefty starter, unless he’s pretty good. But the counter-argument (which is part of traditional baseball orthodoxy) is that mixing in a lefty starter will give opposing batters a “different look” thus somehow confusing them. Apparently after seeing RHP starters, they won’t be prepared for deliveries coming from the other end of the rubber. I don’t buy it.

Your proposed usage pattern might work very well, but I’ll just point out some potential downside risks to it. First, setting up the rotation to give your two best SP’s maximum starts would mean pitching them consistently every five days instead of every five games (and the latter is what teams almost always do, especially after April). This would mean giving both starters 36 starts instead of the 32-34 which is more common for a full season of starting pitching. This would increase the pitcher’s total innings pitched for the year and potentially increase injury risk as well. Second, using four or five pitchers to rotate through the other three rotation spots is somewhat problematic because there is a routine starting pitchers need to be in so that they are in shape to potentially throw 100 pitches every fifth game. Your proposed rotation within the rotation throws that all out of whack. From week to week, they won’t know when they are starting or relieving, so they won’t know what to prepare for. And if a pitcher’s arm and body aren’t built up for 100-pitch starting duties, it isn’t just ready on demand.

I think these are both problems which could be dealt with if your proposed system were tweaked a bit, so I think it might be a good solution if a team has two good SP’s and a bunch of below average pitchers. I don’t know that this is what the Royals have. Actually we really don’t know how good Hochevar, Davies and Bannister are, or will be. That’s one of the reasons that the Royals need to give all three of them a bunch of starts in this not yet contending season.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 13, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with you 100%

I think if Hochevar, Davies and Banny prove to be simply average, a system like this might work. I think they deserve a little more time to establish themselves as above-average arms. However if you had Gil and Zack at the top and three or four HoRam’s behind them, it might not be a bad idea to consider the sub-rotation idea.

You’re completely right about a starting left-hander giving the opposition a “different look”. The “different look” theory applies only to same-game strategy in my opinion. These are professional athletes, they are trained to forget yesterday and focus on the present. Not to mention, sleep tends to reset the mind. It’s most definitely out-dated “orthodoxy” and should be totally thrown out of the formula for selecting this year’s top five for the Royals.

by FretFriendly on Mar 13, 2009 1:23 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

However if you had Gil and Zack at the top and three or four HoRam’s behind them, it might not be a bad idea to consider the sub-rotation idea.

Yeah, I think so. I’d probably tweak your system by setting up some “flights” of pitchers to handle the 3, 4 and 5 spots in the rotation. Basically pairs of pitchers assigned to particular games as the starting duo. That way neither of them is pegged for anything near 100 pitches like a regular starter. They’d each pitch about 3-4 innings or perhaps 50 pitches each, then go to the bullpen. That way these pitchers don’t need to be stretched out too much because they aren’t set to throw 100 pitches or pitch 7+ innings. And the flights of pitchers could be changed from series to series based on the best matchups.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 13, 2009 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

EXACTLY!!

I wonder if a model like that has ever been implemented… I think you’re right in saying that this Royals pitching staff would not do well with this theory, but it would be interesting to see a team try it and stick with it over a season. How about the Orioles?

by FretFriendly on Mar 13, 2009 2:31 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

The flights of pitchers instead of a regular rotation has been tried in a limited way

I think it was Larussa at some point when he was managing the A’s. He had horrible starting pitching, so instead of having a regular rotation, he had a series of flights of pitchers. I think it was three pitchers per rotation spot who were scheduled to pitch in each game. It was a lot like a spring training game: 2-3 innings per pitcher in the flight and then to the bullpen. Of course the results of this experiment don’t tell us much, because there were crappy pitchers involved. Bad pitchers are going to lead to bad results, regardless of strategy.

but it would be interesting to see a team try it and stick with it over a season. How about the Orioles?

It would be worth a try for them. That rotation has some real blanks.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 13, 2009 3:10 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

MLB managers aren't interested in stirring things up

First, they are all traditionalists. I don’t think there is a forward thinking innovator in the MLB managing ranks (Larussa is the only possible exception to this). Second, they don’t want to risk their jobs. If a manager tries something new and perhaps radical and it doesn’t work, then his innovation (which will seem wild and crazy to many) will get blamed for it. This would be a particular risk for the Orioles manager in that he has a really poor pitching staff and pretty much any strategy is going to lead to poor pitching performances.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 13, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.
Start posting about the Royals »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Questions about Analyzing Defense
Glencoco_small
Mike Moustakas in the AFL Futures game
Small
JT20 Dynasty League
Royalsreview_small
KU-KSU Links: Battle for Mt. Sunflower!
Small
Royals ownership...how'd it happen?
Royalsretro_small
Royals trade Mark Teahen to the White Sox for 2B Chris Getz and 3B Josh Fields
Royalsreview_small
Rays Send Aki Iwamura to Pirates for Random Prospect
Glencoco_small
One Fan's Vision for the Royals
Img_0208_2_small
World Series Poll
N1309620122_30067195_1714_small
Offseason time

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Royalsreview_small royalsreview