2012 Rotation
by kcdc1 on Jul 22, 2011 12:09 PM EDT
Email
PrintDespite a sense around here that the Royals have no rotation for next year, some recent developments--the acquisition and success of Paulino and indications from the FO that Crow will be a starter--have given Royals fans a pretty good idea of the shape of the 2012 rotation.
t least to start 2012, the following are likely to be in the rotation:
Barring injury, Paulino, Duffy and Hochevar are almost locks to make the rotation, and I'd give Crow at least a 75% likelihood. There's an off chance that the Royals find 2 more starters they like better than Crow and don't give Crow a full shot, and there's a similarly small chance that Crow bombs so hard in spring training that they give up on him early.
So how does that rotation core look in terms of contending in 2012?
I think Paulino and Duffy will be above-average starters in 2012 while Hochevar and Crow will likely be somewhere below average. Meanwhile, the offense should be above-average to good (it's roughly average right now, and with every single contributor being 27 or younger, you'd expect a little improvement across the board) and the bullpen will be good.
If you could add an ace-caliber pitcher to the rotation, the group looks very competitive. I'd be fine with Paulino as our #2, Duffy as our #3, and Hochevar/Crow rounding out the back of the rotation. But if you throw Chen in there instead, the rotation is again weighted toward the back end.
So my question is: how good of a pitcher would the Royals have to add to these four starters in order to have a good shot at winning the AL Central?
180 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How good of a pitcher....
Good question.
Answer : a hybrid of verlander/grienke/gio Gonzales…
Is there one available?!
Discuss
"Stay Classy Kansas City"
by Mas Cervezas on Jul 22, 2011 12:19 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I think an ace-level pitcher would certainly give the Royals a shot to contend
But is anything less not enough?
Nope.
I just done see it. We have to have a real no shit Ace. Winning is contagious and we need it in our SP rotation
"Stay Classy Kansas City"
by Mas Cervezas on Jul 22, 2011 12:24 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Rotations for next year
are almost impossible to predict from here. Based on past experience, one of those players mentioned above will be missing for at least part of the year.
You really need to start with 8-10 viable rotation candidates and go forward with the 5 (or 6!) survivors.
Yes, I do think we need an Ace. We also probably need to resign Chen or Francis as insurance.
That information is somewhat classified.
Six-man rotations
I see the White Sox and Tampa Bay are also experimenting with six-man rotations. Is this the wave of the future?
Could lead to a 26-man roster, I guess.
That information is somewhat classified.
Six man rotations are stupid.
“Hey, I know what to do! We’ll start all our crappy pitchers and give less starts to the decent ones!
Six man rotations are signs of a front office unable to make a decision, or unable to admit that someone ain’t what they hoped they would be.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
I'm sorta ok with it
If, like the Royals, you are basically auditioning guys for the next couple of years. For competitive teams, it is absolute madness.
by Pointed Stick on Jul 23, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Not really.
If you don’t have any starters with options, you could have have a spot for a sixth FA and then when one goes down not have to bring up a replacement level type pitcher.
Go Royals!
Where is it written that Luke Hochevar is guaranteed a rotation spot?
The guy is 27 and still as inconsistent as his rookie year. He has his lowest K/9 of his career thus far this season. Yet every thread that discusses the 2012 rotation he is sharpied in at the top as a no-brainer while we question whether a guy like Chen is worthy of coming back.
I agree.
While I wouldn’t mind keeping him at the back of the rotation if he keeps consistent until the end of this year, idk why most people are saying he should be a front of the rotation guy.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
Hochevar is nearly guaranteed a rotation spot next year provided that he's healthy
Hochevar is controlled through arbitration through 2014. His sinking fastball averages 92 MPH, he has a 5-pitch arsenal, and he has decent control. The advanced stats also say that he should be better at preventing runs.
Hochevar might never put it together, but there’s no chance in hell that the Royals are going to toss him aside now when it’s possible that he’ll turn the corner and they can enjoy 3 years of cost-controlled success.
Doubtful they will be enjoying those 3 years of "success"
Yeah, Hochevar is realistically going to be here next year simply because the Royals are stupid, but he will easily be the worst starter unless Kyle Davies makes a dramatic return.
Hochevar has decent stuff and peripherals
His problem has been that he melts down with runners on base, so too many of those runners score. Metrics like FIP, xFIP and SIERA think Hochevar has been merely below average rather than awful. Scout and stats agree that there’s reason to believe that Hochevar can become a valuable #3 or #4 starting pitcher. There’s a chance it will never happen. But it would be stupid to throw out a guy with upside and 3 years of control without a clear and superior alternative.
The only difference
between Hochevar and Davies is that one is a first round pick and the other one will be a free agent next year. They are the same age, they have pitched virtually the same number of innings for the Royals. Davies ERA as a Royal is better than Hochevars (5.38 to 5.52)
I see 3 years of Davies-like cost controlled barrel of suck.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
Another difference
Is that Davies has gotten worse every year for four straight years. Hochevar has improved over that period of time.
By what measure?
ERA?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't you remember that they
"fixed him"?
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jul 22, 2011 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
It's written in the memo that says
the Royals don’t have 5 pitchers better then Luke Hochevar.
by Pointed Stick on Jul 23, 2011 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think there is a chance in hell Crow is a starter next year.
Its just the FO trying to up Soria’s value.
In theory
The more the Royals need Soria, the more other teams will give up to acquire him. Personaly, I think it’s bullshit. A player is worth what they are worth. However, lots of people made the same argument (only in reverse) about Betemit. Maybe, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?
by Pointed Stick on Jul 23, 2011 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
This was not true with Betemit and it's not true with Soria
In a market for (relatively) unique goods, the price will be set by the marginal utility to the second-highest bidder. The utility to the seller does not matter.
Bingo
Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. There may be no other team that is willing to pay what the Royals would take for Soria, meaning the Royals think that Soria’s worth more to them than any other team does.
"From northern New Jersey came Boom Boom Mazzaro
A righthanded starter drafted out of high school
He pitched in the minors at Stockton and Midland
And blew them away with all of the tools" --Not Warren Zevon
You guys are confusing "Value" with "Asking Price"
Having no closer to replace him with doesn’t increase Soria’s Value to other teams. He will produce equally for the team that traded for him if we do or don’t have a closer in KC.
It may mean that GMDM will ask more for him, hence the higher asking price, but he isn’t valued any higher today than he was yesterday.
BOOM! ROASTED!
I hope we don't try to sign an ace
to a $100 million deal over 4-6 years (that’s what it’d take, right?). That kind of financial commitment would be putting all our eggs in one basket, and we still have a number of holes to fill.
I’d prefer another deal like Meche’s – good young pitcher with a lot of upside, and hope that , either Montgomery, Duffy, Odorizzi, Crow or the guy we sign in the winter turns into an ace by 2013. That way, we’d still have some financial flexibility at the end of 2012 to buy another plug or two for whatever other holes we have.
I'd be OK going after C.J. Wilson
other than that, I’d just assume wait ’til next offseason
BOOM! ROASTED!
Wilson is going to be in high demand
and i see no reason that he’d want to come to KC.
by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jul 24, 2011 3:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think there's an ace we'd want available this year
Next year, though…
If we picked up on of the good younger aces next year for say 4 years $80 million…
Use him for a year and a half or two years, at a time when we still don’t have many demands on our payroll, and then trade him when we have more pitching developed and start approaching a need for that $20 million somewhere else. We would be able to get prospects in return for him at least as good as what we could have spent that money in LA to sign in that time. Barring a major meltdown or career ending injury, it would be a win win win situation for us.
by Prime2U on Jul 22, 2011 3:35 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
a good young ace is going to want more than 4 years
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 22, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
However many he wants
Doesn’t matter if we trade him away after a couple anyway, other than the fact his remaining contract might scare traders. But if he’s young and an ace and has a few years of control I’d think the Yankees, RSox, Phillies would still be hungry.
by Prime2U on Jul 22, 2011 4:31 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The rotation looks like it could at least keep us in the game, unlike earlier this year.
Davies should be gone. Francis will probably be gone.
If Hochevar remains inconsistent to close out the year, re-sign Chen. If not, keep Hochevar and re-sign him midway through next year.
Paulino looks like he could remain consistent to close out the year. If he does, re-sign him. Duffy looks like he is already an above-average ML starter.
Crow will be Ok.
Monty had a rough outing last time out, but it isn’t that big of a deal unless he has at least a couple more in a row.
This is what it will look like:
1-Chen/Duffy
2-Paulino/Duffy
3-Monty
4-Hochevar/Paulino
5-Crow
If at least 3 of these guys can be above average-ace caliber, we have ourselves a team.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
who in that list has a shot at being ace caliber?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 22, 2011 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
If you want to play fast an loose with the terms 'shot' and 'ace-caliber'
I guess you could say Monty, Duffy and Paulino have a shot. Realistically, it’s unlikely to happen, but they’ve all got excellent stuff and some reason to believe that they can command it.
Chen should be re-signed anyways (if it's cheap)
He would be good rotation insurance for just about any team the way he’s pitched the last couple of years.
If at least 3 of these guys can be above average-ace caliber, we have ourselves a team.
There’s a big difference between above average and ace, do you mean at least above average?
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
Yes, I mean at least.
I also agree with KCDC about Paulino, Monty, and Duffy all having shots at being ace-caliber pitchers.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
Hmmm
Paulino may become a very good pitcher but I’m skeptical he cab ever become a true ace.
Duffy has a chance but he has a long way to go.
Monty has the best shot at becoming a real ace, but he has some things to straighten out first, and I really wouldn’t expect him to be an ace next year by any means.
by Prime2U on Jul 22, 2011 3:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Chen will not be resigned unless we trade him.
He is type B, we will offer arbitration, he will decline, we get a comp pick.
Go Royals!
Hochevar is controlled through 2014 and Paulino is controlled through 2015
You don’t have to “re-sign” them. Moreover, because they’re cost-controlled for so long, there’s no chance that the Royals elect not to bring them back.
I had no idea that Hoch was cost-controlled.
And for some reason, I thought Paulino was on a 1-year contract. Thanks for the heads-up.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
You're technically right
Hoch and Paulino are both on 1-year contracts. But they can’t negotiate with any other teams unless the Royals give up their rights to them.
The Royals should be open to finding other internal solutions
Yeah, try Crow if you want to – but consider trying Holland, Soria, or any of the other relievers, and evaluate it with an OPEN MIND.
As for Hochevar, I’ve seen enough seasons of him consistently underperforming his xFIP to wonder if he is an outlier to that particular method of evaluation. Considering his penchant for being damn good the first time thru the lineup, and damn bad after that, the Royals should have an OPEN MIND about moving him to a relief role, should one of the present relievers prove worthy of conversion.
I say all of this because there is no apparent aces coming onto the FA market, and the Royals minor league system, while vastly improved, arguably could not sustain the hit in talent it would require to acquire an “ace” via the trade route. In short, we need to find and develop our own ace – hence my willingness to leave no stones unturned, INCLUDING a willingness to try many of the current bullpen mates in a starter role to see what happens.
At least, with the Paulino arrival and the last half-dozen Duffy starts, there is more hope now that they could find an “ace” internally than there was a couple of months ago.
If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism
Yes
I don’t know how to do block quotes mobile so: “Yeah, try Crow if you want to – but consider trying Holland, Soria, or any of the other relievers, and evaluate it with an OPEN MIND.”
YES. This is exactly what an organization like the royals should be trying. Will they? Probably not. Though it may be the exception rather than the rule, look at the Rangers. Taking their 9th inning guy (Wilson) and 8th inning guy (ogando) in back to back seasons, and turning them into starters because they have amazing stuff, has turned out to be a great decision for them.
I don’t see the Royals using their imagination though. Gotta have that Proven Closer!
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
by Lum on Jul 22, 2011 2:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Trying that again
Doing blockquotes is just [blockquote] text [/blockquoute] but with < and > in place of [ and ]
Thanks
I figured it was something like that, I just get mixed up in formats from forum to forum so I didn’t wanna butcher it too badly.
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
by Lum on Jul 22, 2011 2:23 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
it's easier than that.
Just select the text you want the block quotes around and click the quotes button in the reply box.
Nick Swisher is handsome.
I can do this when I'm on my laptop
But sadly, mobile SBN has not evolved to that level. Unless I’m completely missing something.
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
The Royals did try
with Robinson Tejeda in turning from 8th inning guy to starter and that worked for a while.
There's never any harm in trying is my point, basically
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
by Lum on Jul 22, 2011 2:28 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I think the team would be better off
If they just traded Soria for a good starter/ great starter prospect than to try to convert him back at this point. Probably be a lot better for Soria’s career, too.
by Prime2U on Jul 22, 2011 3:45 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If we are successful
More likely it will be because one (or more) of those guys improved significantly, not because we added some stud pitcher.
I do hope Dayton does use his brilliant scouting eye to find another Paulino or two though. Seems like every winter there are a few guys like that available.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
We need all we can get
given how few of KC’s native SP prospects actually pitch well above high-A.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jul 22, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
When Does Chen
Become a real option? If he continues to have success for the rest of the season, how can we not bring him back? His style ages well, and we don’t have that many great options.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
He's already a real option
At this point it would be stupid to not bring him back if A) he is willing and B) his price is reasonable.
How much would you pay him?
That’s the $64 question. I wish that’s all he would cost.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 22, 2011 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
With his injury this year
I would bet he gets about the same offers he got last winter.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
We can offer him arbitration
And then win either way. Either get him for a decent price or get a type B pick.
by Prime2U on Jul 22, 2011 4:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
That rotation core looks like crap
This team isn’t going to sniff 80 wins with a rotation like that. And I don’t see any available aces.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
I think you're forgetting about those three good starts Montgomery had in AAA
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jul 22, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
So if he has 3 out of 30..
Is that better than Davies 3 out of 60? I’m no good with numbers.
better than Davies = Ace
Prep the Plaza!
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jul 22, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Also forgot that Odorizzi is definitely going to get called up by the ASB. And Arguelles. Looks like they are going to have to go with a 7-man rotation for the second half of the season.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 22, 2011 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
We can trade a couple of those guys for Evan Longoria
Moose insurance
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jul 22, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
That might create confusion in the clubhouse. If we do that, we’d have to trade Moose and Dwyer for Pujols.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 22, 2011 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
My analysis was that Duffy and Paulino will be above average while Hochevar and Crow will be below average. If you’re saying the core looks like crap, you obviously disagree strongly with those some of those assessments. Where do you disagree?
There is a lot of uncertainty
So I don’t want it to sound like I know exactly how good/bad these pitchers will be. I do think Hochevar and Crow would be below average starters next year. Crow might be genuinely bad. At this point, I’m not confident that Duffy and Paulino will be even average next season. It’s possible. One or both may well be average or better. I think the Royals would be fortunate to have one of them be above average next year.
So I think it likely that no more than one of those four will be above average, a couple will be below average and the other will probably be genuinely bad. And then there’s the 5th SP. That’s a bad rotation.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 22, 2011 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I have a lot of confidence in Duffy and Paulino
Paulino has always had good peripherals, and he’s always been able to miss bats. His success in 50 innings with the Royals is partially a result of him suddenly being able to control the strike zone, but he’s been a solid pitcher for a long time. If he can keep the walks down as he has so far with the Royals, he goes from solid to very good.
As for Duffy, he’s missing bats as well. He had some walk troubles when he first came up, but he’s made a lot of progress. My feeling is that he needed some time to adjust, but I don’t think the walks will be a big problem going forward.
I think some confusion may be the use of "above-average"
By “above-average”, do you mean 90th percentile, 51st percentile, or somewhere in between?
It makes a pretty big difference. If Paulino and Duffy are both 55th percentile above average, while the other two are below average, it’s not going to be a good rotation.
Unless I'm wrong...
I'm guessing here but
He most likely means that:
Above average= above 2 WAR
Below Average = 0-2 WAR
Bad = negative WAR
by Prime2U on Jul 22, 2011 4:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Would it be fair to say that (at 2011 rates), the rotation would need to avg FIP/xFIP of 4 or better?
For 2011:
Chi – 3.61/3.79
Det – 3.80/3.93
Min – 3.97/3.98
Cle – 4.09/3.84
KC – 4.54/4.29
Just getting to 4.00 may be a bit generous, but I think we can say that they need to be AT LEAST that good to play above .500, much less “contend”.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jul 22, 2011 2:38 PM EDT reply actions
So, centered around 4.00 FIP/xFIP, you would need:
1. Jeff Francis 3.70 (ZiPS FIP projection for the rest of 2011), -.30 from 4.00
2. Felipe Paulino 3.78, -.22
3. ???? 3.84, -.16
4. Luke Hochevar 4.29, +.29
5. Danny Duffy 4.39, +.39
Note:
Jeff Francis’s career xFIP is 4.37 – how much of that is due to pitching in Coors is up to you.
“????” is what it would take to fill out the hypothetical rotation and keep it at 4.00.
And this is if everyone stays healthy. You need Francis to re-sign and pitch another career year. You need Paulino to not turn into a frog. You need Crow to be an above-average #3 (or have Duffy/Hoch improve while Crow is at least #5). Or potentially sign a front-line starter. All of these things have to happen, and even then that’s maybe a middle of the pack rotation in the AL Central. So you’re telling me there’s a chance.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jul 22, 2011 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I'm not high on our rotation for next year
But I do think that Duffy will lower his FIP next year, perhaps pretty significantly. Do I think that will make this a good rotation?
No.
by Prime2U on Jul 22, 2011 4:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
My starting 5 and order
1-Chen (I hate to put a relatively new major league pitcher in this spot, so Duffy is going 2nd)
2-Duffy
3-Paulino
4-Hochevar (If Luke starts to perform better or Paulino regresses, maybe he flips with Paulino into the 3rd spot.
5-Monty/Crow (if Crow doesn’t develop a better 3rd pitch that’s usable, he stays in the pen and Monty is #5. If Crow DOES develop that pitch, I’d start with a 6 man rotation with Crow #5 and Monty #6.
Blech
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
by Lum on Jul 22, 2011 2:45 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
its an interesting way to get the rookies feet wet
"Stay Classy Kansas City"
by Mas Cervezas on Jul 22, 2011 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
So you can imagine
how Yost feels being handed that train of pitchers.
It would suck to be any manager with that rotation, yes
Which is why DM needs to do some work getting at least one average starter, a guy who can post an FIP around 4.00.
If Hosmer and Moose can live up to expectations next year, Alcides can keep up a .650 OPS, and there isn’t a tiny winged faerie playing second base, an average pitching staff could be helped along by an above-average offense to at least a not 90-loss season.
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
by Lum on Jul 22, 2011 3:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
How 'bout Chad Billingsley
Definitely not an ace but would add some stability to the rotation for the next 3 years – like Meche but better. He has a lot of money coming to him but the Royals can certainly afford it. Given the mess the Dodgers are in it may not take elite prospects to get him if you take on the whole contract.
I agree Chen has earned another year and a raise if he keeps it up – that gives Monty more time if he needs it. But I’m not optimistic about Crow as a starter (good RR post earlier this week about how few other SPs succeed with a limited repertoire like his). Adding a good RH starter is key to taking a step forward next year.
Get on with it
Everyday we watch, Getz, Franchis, Treanor and even Chen waste playing time. Our “future” guys should be now. Get Giovatella and Cain here and playing everyday. Start B. Pena 80% of the time. If Chen has any future here then give him a 2-3 year deal with a club buyout, if so then move Hochevar to the pen and start these guys to finish the year:
1- Duffy
2- Paulino
3- Chen
4- Crow
5- Holland
2012
1- Duffy
2- Paulino
3- Chen
4- Crow or Holland
5- Monty steps in for the worst of the five above (june 2012)
2013
1- FA Signing – Marcum, Cain, Greinke, Hamels
2- Duffy
3- Monty
4- Best of 2-6 from 2012
5- 2nd best from 2-6 2012
That's probably what it's going to be
except you’re over-optimistic about Chen and that 2013 FA signing, and I see more Luke in there than you do. I do see them signing a starter or two for next year but I’m not sure who they’re going to be.
"From northern New Jersey came Boom Boom Mazzaro
A righthanded starter drafted out of high school
He pitched in the minors at Stockton and Midland
And blew them away with all of the tools" --Not Warren Zevon
Plan
On this for 2013:
Duffy
Monty
Starter via a trade
Starter from current bullpen
Starter via FA for big bucks
I'll buy that
The question is whether we can get a big bucks starter. Paulino would still be a possibility, depending on how he turns out. Dwyer by 2013 or not? Lamb, who knows. Holland and Crow could both probably start, depending on their curveballs. We’ll see what happens. That’s the fun part.
Oh, yeah. No Davies and no Luke in 2013. Watch me be totally wrong.
"From northern New Jersey came Boom Boom Mazzaro
A righthanded starter drafted out of high school
He pitched in the minors at Stockton and Midland
And blew them away with all of the tools" --Not Warren Zevon
Holland and starting have never been a good combo
I know, he looks like he has starter material, but he worked better as a closer in college, and he did piss poorly when they tried him in A ball…. The dude is a potentially great closer, but I have huge doubts he’ll ever make a good starter.
by Prime2U on Jul 23, 2011 1:52 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You may be right, BUT
If he can continue to have this lower walk rate than I think he would have success as a starter. He has the “stuff”, question is can he control it long enough to start.
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=518813
Point is that this is when you should try Crow and Holland. While we wait on Odorizzi and Monty, we should see if we can stumble on something.
I
see 2012 as Duffy, Paulino, Chen, Montgomery and one of Hoch, Holland, or Crow with Odorizzi starting in Omaha and brought up in July to replace the weak link. Crow doesn’t have enough pitches and Hoch would be better as a closer, so Holland looks possible. If Monty could put together three straight good starts in Omaha, I think he’ld be up soon and give GMDM an excuse to DFA Davies, trade a reliever or two, and move Hoch to the ’pen, “To keep down his innings” or similar lame excuse. I think Hoch is on a fairly short leash at the moment.
by Jim Fetterolf on Jul 24, 2011 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Hochevar Is Not
Going to the pen any time soon.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 24, 2011 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Did
G*d tell you that? Hoch is profiling more and more as a reliever and for the first time in years there will be some serious competition in the rotation.
by Jim Fetterolf on Jul 24, 2011 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Are we talking about the Royals?
Where is all of this competition coming from? The Royals are very thin at SP. Hochevar is one of the very few pitchers whose position in the rotation is essentially guaranteed.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
In
the current rotation Hoch isn’t even much competition. Montgomery has been mentioned and should have started here this year, Paulino looks like a solid 4.5 ERA guy, Chen has proven himself, Duffy is trending well, so that leaves Hoch to compete for a fifth spot with Holland, Crow, and whomever else gets a chance next spring, assuming Francis isn’t resigned. Hoch, like Davies, seems to lack the ability to get through an order more than once or twice, at least twice a handy skill for a starter.
Apparently you disagree, being underwhelmed with Duffy:) Or was that Will?
by Jim Fetterolf on Jul 24, 2011 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Montgomery has been mentioned and should have started here this year
In the majors? He didn’t perform exceptionally well in AA in his half season there. And yet he should have jumped all the way to the majors? Doesn’t his genuinely poor AAA performance so far this year show that he’s not MLB-ready? And we have no idea when/if he will be. It’s not like top pitching prospects usually end up succeeding in the majors.
Paulino looks like a solid 4.5 ERA guy,
While that is a possibility, it is way too soon to jump to that conclusion.
Chen has proven himself
How much do you need to see from a pitcher before he proves himself? So far he has the equivalent of just a little over one full season of starts with the Royals. Does that really erase the rest of his career? And will he be a Royal at all next year?
Duffy is trending well
3 starts in July is enough to tell you that Duffy’s going to stay on the right track and become good? Your fetish for tiny sample size trends is bizarre.
So yes there’s competition. And it isn’t good competition from a bunch of good, MLB-ready pitchers.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow Scott
I’ve never seen you so negative… this is so great i don’t even need to post my comments considering you are so critical of Moore’s acquisitions, and thus his tenure as GM
by GobbleforCyoung on Jul 24, 2011 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you new here?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
ehh...i think 4.5 is a very reasonable expectation for paulino
given his career 4.22 FIP and 3.99 xFIP….however, the problem is, with the run scoring environment the way it is…4.5 isnt a very good starter
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 25, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not entirely unreasonable. I just think we haven’t seen enough of him to know, especially with how different his RA has been from his FIP, xFIP, tERA and SIERA. We don’t know why that is. I’d be comfortable estimating 4.25-5.25 at this point.
the problem is, with the run scoring environment the way it is…4.5 isnt a very good starter
Yeah, a solid #4 SP.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 25, 2011 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Does that really erase the rest of his career?
Arm surgery, different arm, different approach. Yeah, I think his pre-injury career doesn’t carry more weight than his cumulative about year as starter with us.
“3 starts in July is enough to tell you that Duffy’s going to stay on the right track and become good?”
No, but it is enough to say he’s trending well; fewer walks, fewer pitches, still missing some bats.
“And it isn’t good competition from a bunch of good, MLB-ready pitchers.”
Good, MLB-ready pitchers were punk-kid prospects once upon a time and took a few years to grow into it.
“Your fetish for tiny sample size trends is bizarre.”
And your reading comprehension challenges are kind of bizarre.
by Jim Fetterolf on Jul 25, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
No, but it is enough to say he’s trending well; fewer walks, fewer pitches, still missing some bats.
You really think that 3 starts is a meaningful trend? I’m not just talking about Duffy. You say this nonsense all the time. Three starts, a week of hitting stats or some similar tiny bit of data = trending…as if such a trend were meaningful. Does it mean anything to you that no statistical analyst would say that a micro-trend like that is meaningful? It seems like you are stubbornly, willfully ignorant on this point.
Good, MLB-ready pitchers were punk-kid prospects once upon a time and took a few years to grow into it.
Yes and most
"Your fetish for tiny sample size trends is bizarre."
And your reading comprehension challenges are kind of bizarre.
Funny. “Duffy is trending well.” You’ve said that a few times just in this thread. And you’ve said that this “trend” comes from just three starts. That you give meaning to a trend over three data points is ridiculous. You should be embarrassed for relying on that kind of “trend.” Instead, you stick with this kind of Lee Judge-quality “statisitcal analysis.” I think you should come up with a point system for micro-trends so you can quantify these extremely meaningful events. At least you would then turn your ham fisted efforts at statistical analysis into some real comedy, like that lamebrain Lee Judge.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 25, 2011 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
As A Practitioner
Of Mordoo, I take offense at this G*d reference. My dog told me. She is the one true dog, and I have no other dogs before her.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 24, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
2012 Rotation courtesy of Dayton Moores 7th year as GM
1- Fair
2-Poor
3- Suck
4- Terrible
5- Historically fucking bad
But, but, but….the minors!
Pro-Dayton Moore = Blogger
Anti-Dayton Moore= Troll
by DaytonSucks on Jul 23, 2011 12:17 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs
I
think, based on current bodies, that it will be Duffy, Paulino, Montgomery, Chen, and one of Hoch, Holland, or Crow, with Odorizzi starting the year at Omaha and on the short-term horizon. Of Holland and Crow I figure Holland more likely. I think Hoch is on a short leash with Montgomery and JaKKKKe closing in.
Montgomery is supposedly back to a modified long-toss program and had a couple of good starts in his last three, similar pattern to Duffy before he was called up, so barring injury I consider him a lock. Duffy is learning on the fly and showing serious flashes, including goosing the heater up to 97. Paulino is a pleasant surprise who isn’t really pitching beyond his abilities, and Master Chen is doing what he’s done for us in the rotation over the last year plus, so probably gets resigned to win some games, eat some innings, and mentor the young lefties. Could be a decent rotation with three or four strike out pitchers and some nasty stuff. The ‘pen could be even better with Herrera and Chapman, so I figure Collins won’t be back, maybe Woods also.
Neither Montgomery nor Odorizzi look anywhere near MLB-ready
And your guess that Chen gets re-signed is just that, mere guesswork. I’d rather offer him arbitration, have him decline and then get a comp pick (hopefully).
And given how Duffy, Montgomery and Hochevar have looked this year, I don’t see much reason to be optimistic about the rotation you suggested.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 23, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
And given how Duffy, Montgomery and Hochevar have looked this year, I don’t see much reason to be optimistic about the rotation you suggested.
Duffy is trending well, Montgomery isn’t pitching much differently than Duffy before the call-up and I mentioned Hoch as in the hunt for the fifth starter. Chen has pitched well as a starter for us, so probably has earned another year, and Paulino has been good, lots of Ks, few walks. With Holland as fifth starter, you got four strike out pitchers and the crafty veteran Master Chen. I can live with that.
“I don’t see much reason to be optimistic about the rotation you suggested.”
You’ld gripe if you found a Benji on the ground because you’ld have to bend over to pick it up.
by Jim Fetterolf on Jul 24, 2011 2:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Duffy is trending well
You and your short-term trends. When and how is he trending well? He was worse in June than in May. Are you talking about his 3 July starts? Is that really what you’re hanging your hat on? A 3-start “trend”? Do sample sizes mean anything at all to you?
Montgomery isn’t pitching much differently than Duffy before the call-up
Is this more short-term trends? Because over a larger sample, Duffy was pitching much, much better than Montgomery.
Chen has pitched well as a starter for us, so probably has earned another year
You do realize that he’s going to be a FA, right? The Royals might get him if they want him, but it does take two to tango. It is anything but certain that he’ll be a Royal next year.
With Holland as fifth starter
While anything is possible, there is no good reason to think that this career reliever would succeed even as a MLB 5th starter.
you got four strike out pitchers and the crafty veteran Master Chen. I can live with that
While I’m sure you can live with it, that is a genuinely crappy rotation.
You’ld gripe if you found a Benji on the ground because you’ld have to bend over to pick it up.
No, I gripe about a lack of talent and production. The rotation you suggestion is short on both. Look at the stats, not some pie in the sky notion of “hey everything’s going to be just fine.”
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm optimistic about Duffy for next year.
I think his control is developing, and he’s clearly got pretty good swing and miss stuff. I think he can have a nice year next year. I am cautiously optimistic about Paulino too…but that’s about it. There’s no way in hell anyone can say our rotation looks good overall in any way next year. EVERYTHING would have to go exactly right next year for our starting rotation to be average next year……that ain’t happening.
Killing time until time kills me
You just named 2 pitchers that you’re optimistic about. You only need 3 above average starters and 2 guys that don’t kill you
And him being optimistic about one pitcher and cautiously optimistic about another doesn’t really mean that he thinks it is likely that there will be three above average starters. I mean, I’d be very happy if Duffy were above average next year and Paulino was average (and while I can’t speak for him, I think EspeciallyK would be happy with that as well). And one above average, one average and three other pitchers would be a shit rotation.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 23, 2011 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I didn't say both would be above-average.
I’d be happy with both of them being solid, league-average starting pitchers next year. I think Duffy has some pretty solid upside and I am optimistic about Duffy in particular, but that doesn’t mean I think he’s going to immediately reach that upside.
and kcdc1, you are making building a good rotation seem a hell of a lot easier than it actually is. This year’s current rotation is dogshit, yet somehow you are convincing yourself that we can just bring back just about all of the same arms and somehow turn it into a good rotation. That’s only possible if EVERYTHING goes right…..and that’s almost impossible.
Next year’s rotation will probably be better than this year’s, yet probably still below average. Our current rotation is 13th in the AL, allowing 4.83 runs per game (couldn’t find it by ERA on B-R, wierd…). I could see our rotation improving to 9th-10th in the AL…but that’s still below average and not good enough to contend.
Things are getting better…but not as quickly as you are trying to convince yourself.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 23, 2011 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Our top five starting pitcher xFIP is 4.00
which is about league average this year.
Yah, our starting pitching is dogshit, and by that I mean league average.
Go Royals!
Well that should tell you all you need to know about xFIP. It sucks.
Normalizing HR rates is ridiculous. There is no way our starting pitching is league average. When looking at a rotation, you can’t just look at one statistic for only five guys and then ignore everything else. Like it or not, Davies, Mazzaro, Sullivan..those guys are a part of the 2010 starting rotation and two (if not all three) will be back next year and could see some time.
A starting rotation isn’t just five guys all year. People get hurt or people suck and have to be replaced…so you need lots of depth.
Just ignoring all the other guys and only looking at one stat for just five guys and calling that league average is nothing more than twisting the numbers. If our pitching is league average, our offense average and our defense average…how the hell are we 43-57 (or whatever we are)?
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 23, 2011 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, the 7th best starting rotation xFIP is 3.83. The 8th best is 3.87.
So even with you twisting the numbers as hard as possible, the rotation is still below average. Only four teams have a xFIP of worse than 4.00 and that’s including ALL their pitchers who have started games. If you just took the top five xFIPs for each team like you are doing with KC, that number would drop significantly.
Our current rotation is better than it was to start the year, that is true, but it’s still below-average for the 2011 season (I said 2010 in the previous post, meant 2011) it has been dogshit.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 23, 2011 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
xFIP sucks?
Better share your study that refutes the ones that show it was the best.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jul 24, 2011 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I think normalizing HR/FB rates is ridiculous.
Obviously I ain’t got the math chops to prove it conclusively. It’s my opinion, I am not going to claim it as a conclusive fact.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 24, 2011 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions
and just saying it is one of the best current stats we have doesn't make it entirely accurate.
Unless you claim that pitching metrics are 100% perfect right now and don’t need to ever be improved upon? I doubt you would say that though. I think there’s a lot of room for pitching and defensive metrics to grow, and I think the xFIP experiment of normalizing HR/FB rates was a nice try, but doesn’t make sense.
SIERA is interesting to me. I look forward to learning more about that.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 24, 2011 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Even in the fangraphs description of xFIP,
it says that xFIP may not be the best evaluator of a pitcher’s talent in some cases AND in an article on fangraphs from 02/16/11 about HR/FB rate, it says there may be some skill to getting a better HR/FB rate.
Add all that up, and simply adjusting every pitcher’s HR/FB rate to the league average (which is all xFIP does differently from FIP, as I understand) doesn’t make sense to me.
I like FIP. I think xFIP takes a wrong turn.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 24, 2011 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Also...(I know, four posts in a row, this will be my last for the night)
I don’t think there is one single metric that is accurate enough to properly evaluate future ERA and true pitching performance. You may well be right that xFIP is the best we have for now, but if I am trying to evaluate a pitcher, I look at a lot more than just one metric and try to put it all together. I’m just not willing to accept that pitchers have no control over what percentage of their flyballs leave the ballpark. Just can’t buy that notion.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 24, 2011 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
I like FIP. I think xFIP takes a wrong turn.
It sounds like you are basing this on your gut. Sure it is counterintuitive that pitchers have little to do with what percentage of the FB’s they give up turn into HR’s. But the data shows this quite clearly. Over large samples of data, HR/FB rate for pitchers is about 10-11%. Anything above or below that is about 1) park factors (especially home park, of course) and 2) luck. Sure there are some few pitchers who can beat this average, just as there are some that maintain an abnormally low BABIP. But they are the exceptions.
It seems as though you buy into the descriptive value of FIP. It is a defense independent pitching stat. It is based on the counterintuitive notion that pitchers have little to do with what happens to balls in play. That notion can be hard to swallow. But the data leads us to that conclusion. You’ve clearly bought into it (even though a small percentage of pitchers can significantly beat league average BABIP). You should buy into the lucky nature of HR/FB for the same reason, and thus recognize the value of xFIP.
And no xFIP is not the be-all, end-all of pitching stats. But I think it tells you more about the true talent level of a pitcher than FIP. But in evaluating a pitcher, I’d look at both stats, as well as tERA and SIERA, with a dash of ERA.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions
If HR/FB rates almost always normalize to 10-11%...
how come 23 of 92 pitchers with 1000 IP since 2002 (this is as far back as fangraphs data goes) have HR/FB rates of greater than 12% or less than 9%.
Even if we are saying anything from 9.0 – 12.0 % is in the normalized range, 1/4 of all pitchers fall outside that normal range. If what you say is true about HR/FB rate for pitchers all trending toward 10-11%, how come 25% of pitchers with a large sample size fall outside of that range?
Are 25% of pitchers just lucky? That’s just too many pitchers that break the supposed law of HR/FB rates normalizing for me to buy into it.
Doesn’t mean xFIP is completely useless…but I just don’t accept it’s normalizing of HR/FB rate. It’s not based on my “gut,” it is based on looking at so many HR/FB rates and seeing them fall outside of the league average, even over the long term.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 24, 2011 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
37 of 134 fall outside of the range if we make it a 800 IP sample.
14 of 60 fall outside the range if it is a 1200 IP sample.
I ain’t a huge math guy, so I obviously am not going to be able to entirely disprove the notion of xFIP here. But I will say that there are an awful lot of articles from science journals, both present and past, that have a lot of wrong information in them that I would never be smart enough to disprove. That doesn’t make all that information right. I think there’s definitely room for skepticism…especially considering all these metrics seem to be based on only 9 1/2 seasons worth of data. (Only since 2002, if the fangraphs data is any indication).
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 24, 2011 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Also, currently 34 of 105 qualified SPs this season have a HR/FB rate of between 9-12%
Does that mean 71 of 105 MLB starting pitchers are just getting lucky?!??! That just seems way, way off to me.
How long does it take for HR/FB rate to normalize, supposedly, over a pitcher’s career? I’ll have to find out tomorrow, I really am leaving now.
Killing time until time kills me
Have you looked into the studies?
I didn’t discover this phenomenon, nor did I develop xFIP. But some of the best sabermetric minds alive routinely talk about HR/FB “luck” and see xFIP as a very meaningful statistic (and of course not to be solely relied upon).
It seems like you are rejecting the studies and research on this without really looking into it. And the experts in the field who are familiar with the studies buy into it. (and I’m certainly not talking about myself, but people like Tango, Lichtman, Cameron, etc.). Now, they could all be wrong, but I’m going to need to see some better counter evidence than what you’ve given above. If the average is 10-11%, I can’t tell you how much variance you should expect to see. Nor can I tell you how many pitchers should be outside of that norm based on the extreme HR park factors of their home park. Nor can I tell you how many IP it takes for this percentage to settle down to the expected average.
I can understand your skepticism. And you should fee free to debunk anything in sabermetrics. But what you’ve done above hasn’t debunked anything. Just because it doesn’t feel right to you and the numbers don’t seem right to you, isn’t near enough. And your statement at “xFIP sucks” really isn’t supported by anything more meaningful than your gut feeling.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I am not trying to convince you it is wrong. I am expressing why I think it isn't accurate enough.
IF the phrase “it sucks” is what is bothering you, than that’s fine. I will just say “it isn’t accurate enough” instead. I just said sucks because it was the word I chose to say. Just like saying “Yuniesky Betancourt sucks” is technically wrong b/c he is one of the best baseball players in the world, saying “xFIP sucks” is probably wrong b/c it is a whole lot better than most other metrics. I just mean it isn’t good enough yet. I don’t any single metric is accurate enough yet to truly measure pitching performance.
Yes, I have looked at the studies. Am I an expert on them? No.
Yes I understand you didn’t invent the stat. Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. These are just my reasons why I am skeptical of this stats accuracy. It’s based on more than just gut feeling though. It’s based on seeing too many pitchers with HR/FB rates that are above or below league average for a lot of years.
Also, xFIP may be the best predictor of future ERA. I am not interested in that. I am interested in a stat that tells me how well a pitcher has pitched so far. If a pitcher has an ERA of 2.90 in 2011 but an xFIP of 3.75, then sure, his ERA may trend towards 3.75 over the course of the next few years, but that doesn’t mean he was just a 3.75 ERA pitcher who was just the recipient of a lucky HR/FB rate. It could mean he was actually doing something to keep his HR/FB rate low during that actual season.
Killing time until time kills me
The reason xFIP works better then FIP
at ERA projection is that pitchers only control a fraction of the HR rate. I don’t know what that fraction is, but it is small enough to make xFIP a much better predictor, so it is a lot smaller then 1/2 of the rate. Maybe a stat that averaged the pitchers HR/FB rate with the mean (two or three times?) would work better?
Go Royals!
I'm w/ K on most of this
I despise the fact that pitchers aren’t held accountable for a bad HR/FB Ratio.
It is backwards logic to me. Saying they normalize to 10-11% means nothing to me, other than the ‘league average’ is 10-11%.
I think you have to make a HUGE assumption to draw the conclusion that it is ‘bad luck’. The only way I see that it makes sense is if you assume that every pitch that a pitcher throws is at least league average, because if they threw a below average pitch, they would expect to have a high HR/FB ratio (which, as you’ve put it, is merely a product of bad luck as opposed to being below average).
Again, like K, I’m not trying to change minds, or call those that agree w/ it an idiot…
BOOM! ROASTED!
I think you have to make a HUGE assumption to draw the conclusion that it is ‘bad luck’
It’s the data that leads to that conclusion, even if it doesn’t seem like it should be that way.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I don't think it's a huge assumption to say there is luck involved...
I just don’t agree with saying it is ALL luck (or park factors). I think there is SOME skill involved in it and xFIP doesn’t account for that whatsoever.
How much skill is involved? I have no idea…but I just don’t agree with saying there is no skill involved.
Killing time until time kills me
There are no absolutes. You use FIP which assumes a league average BABIP for all pitchers. But in reality, all pitchers have their own individual BABIP. But it takes many, many years of data to figure out what a given pitcher’s BABIP is. So it makes sense to assume a league average BABIP to evaluate a pitcher until his personal BABIP can be determined. But this doesn’t lead you to reject or say that FIP has a huge flaw. Sure FIP should be taken with a grain of salt (as with every stat). The same goes for xFIP. But it seems like you are being much more negative about xFIP than FIP. Is that warranted?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I like FIP, but yes as you say the BABIP factor causes it to be taken with a grain of salt.
With xFIP, there is only one difference and that’s a difference I find to be misleading. That’s why I prefer FIP over xFIP by a lot. I find it silly that both of them are even used. I mean, one stat keeps the pitcher’s HR/FB rate as is..and one stat normalizes it. Well, which one is the right thing to do? Either you are supposed to normalize it, rendering FIP outdated and useless, or you aren’t supposed to normalize it, which makes xFIP useless. It’s gotta be either/or, it can’t be both. I side with FIP.
Killing time until time kills me
I should say, I don’t like both xFIP and FIP being used to evaluate a pitcher’s performance at the same time. If xFIP is a better predictor of FUTURE performance, I can buy that as its purpose, even if I disagree with its method. But if I am trying to evaluate what a pitcher has already done, I use FIP (and other stats) and ignore xFIP.
I don’t mean to say I think it’s silly that both of them exist.
Killing time until time kills me
It makes perfect sense to use both of them at the same time. FIP tells you what happened. That is how the pitcher actually performed. xFIP adds some information by taking out a luck element and showing more of the true talent of the pitcher. FIP tells you more about the pitcher’s performance and xFIP tells you more about the pitcher’s actual talent.
I still don’t understand you like FIP’s method (normalizing for BABIP which usually works very well, although a minority of pitchers significantly beat league average over a large sample) but don’t like xFIP’s method (normalizing for HR/FB which usually works well, although a minority of pitchers significiantly beat league average over a large sample).
If xFIP is a better predictor of FUTURE performance, I can buy that as its purpose, even if I disagree with its method. But if I am trying to evaluate what a pitcher has already done, I use FIP (and other stats) and ignore xFIP.
If one is trying to evaluate how well a pitcher has pitched over a given time frame (so far this season, the past two seasons, his career, or whatever) I think it makes sense to look at both FIP and xFIP. In evaluating a pitcher, I think it makes sense to 1) isolate the pitcher’s performance, and 2) remove as many luck elements as possible. FIP does a good deal of both. It takes out defense and the random luck which affects BABIP. xFIP does that as well, by including all of that and also taking out the luck element of HR/FB.
So xFIP is a very good measure of how well a pitcher has performed (isolating his performance and removing luck). But I wouldn’t ignore FIP, because pitchers do have something to do with HR/FB (although the vast majority of it is luck and park). FIP, xFIP, SIERA and tERA each give valuable information about a pitcher’s performance and each look at it in a somewhat different way. I think they should all be used. Even ERA has its place.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
All of that is just based on HR/FB rate being entirely luck-driven.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/platoon-splits-babip-and-hrfb-rates/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/can-matt-cain-sustain-his-low-hrfb-rate/
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/the_hr_per_fb_skill/
Three articles, two from Dave Cameron and one from Tango, that discuss that HR/FB rate might have some skill to it.
xFIP portrays HR/FB rate as entirely driven by luck and park factors. I don’t find this to be an accepted fact and neither do people a lot smarter than me.
Killing time until time kills me
I don't present those articles as evidence that I am "right."
I just think those articles show that there is some doubt as to whether there is skill involved in HR/FB rate, and how much skill is involved.
I think it’s an issue that is far, far from resolved and I feel somewhat certain they will find that there is some skill to HR/FB rate.
Killing time until time kills me
HR/FB does have some skill to it. BABIP has some skill to it. So I say again, why do you freely buy into FIP (which assumes BABIP at league average) but not xFIP (which assumes HR/FB at league average)?
xFIP portrays HR/FB rate as entirely driven by luck and park factors. I don’t find this to be an accepted fact and neither do people a lot smarter than me.
They are not negating xFIP anymore than they are doing so for FIP. There is some pitching skill there. Pitchers affect BABIP and HR/FB. But few do it to a significant degree and it takes years and years of data before it can be seen that a pitcher is significantly different from average. That is why both FIP and xFIP are important and very useful measures.
Again, if you buy into FIP, you should buy into xFIP for the same reason. It has long been accepted that pitchers have some impact on BABIP, and yet FIP is accepted and extremely useful, although it sets BABIP at league average for all pitchers. Do you see the similarity?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I would justify it by saying FIP has one factor that is questionable. The normalizing of BABIP. xFIP has two factors that are questionable. The normalizing of BABIP and the normalizing of HR/FB rate.
Thus, I’ll rely on the metric with only one factor I deem questionable, as opposed to the one that has two questionable factors.
If FIP didn’t exist and all we had was xFIP, I would be more accepting of it. However, since xFIP is the exact same as FIP except for (in my opinion) one questionable change, I just see no use for it.
So, yes, I do see the similarities, and that’s why I am not claiming FIP to be perfect. I think it does have that one flaw, but one flaw is better than two flaws.
Killing time until time kills me
None of the sabermetrics are fantastic
They simply use more components in an equation to arrive at a solution to a “problem”, such as how many runs is a pitcher responsible for; unlike ERA which just adds runs given up regardless of all the other data. I still like ERA because its actually indicative of a pitchers performance. HR rates and BABIP don’t always “normalize” for specific players, and sabermaticians have difficulty accounting for why a specific pitcher tends to give up more HR’s and base hits than others regardless of park/defense (like Luke).
And arguing our starting pitching is average based on FIP is ludicrous. And our offense is better than average too compared to rankings? WTF! Its really convenient to compare an AL team with a DH to the majority of MLB teams without one. You can only compare the AL to other AL teams, and the KC offense is 7th out of 14 teams in OPS. They are average, not above
by GobbleforCyoung on Jul 24, 2011 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure but
I believe stats like wOBA and wRC+ are leauge (and park) adjusted
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
Like it or not, Davies, Mazzaro, Sullivan..those guys are a part of the 2010 starting rotation and two (if not all three) will be back next year and could see some time.
That I doubt. Much better competition next year or even this year, which is Mazarro and SOS probably won’t by back and I’ld be surprised to see Davies here in two weeks unless he puts together three quick quality starts. Monty’s getting closer, apparently gone back to a little longer-tossing, which has given in two good starts in the last three.
“how the hell are we 43-57 (or whatever we are)?”
Meltdowns by the occasional starter and dumb young player mistakes. Talent can’t be taught and experience takes a little time.
by Jim Fetterolf on Jul 24, 2011 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but the Royals had a lot of injuries this year and the xFIP
of the league is a lot below normal levels. It is not that the Royals starters were all that bad this year, it is just that the league had better pitching overall.
The average xFIP last year was 4.3. I think some of that is due to other staffs not having an average amount of injuries, and the pitchers overall just having better years then average. I don’t buy into the batters just dropping off that much in one year. The other staffs will almost certainly regress some next year, it is not nearly as bad as it looks.
Go Royals!
If you think our AL-worst record is because of
“occasional” meltdowns by the SP and some dumb young player mistakes, then you are just completely delusional. Our record is so bad b/c we aren’t as talented as other teams. We score less runs than we give up. Our rotation has been the worst (or near it) in the AL and our offense, while not awful, isn’t near good enough to make up for it.
You really should watch or follow some of the other teams around the league and see what actual good baseball teams look like.
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 24, 2011 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
I Get To
Watch the Mariners. Our position players are Golden Gods
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 24, 2011 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think building a decent rotation is easy
I just don’t think building an average rotation is impossible from what the Royals have to work with. I think Duffy and Paulino are going to prove themselves the rest of this season. And I think Hochevar is an acceptable #4/5. If we could add Greinke and Chen to those 3, I think the group would be above average. But that’s not going to happen. I’m just posing the discussion topic. It’s more fun than bitching about Getz/Davies some more.
Yea i think we could have our 3-4-5 on the team
1.Starter via free agency
2.Starter via trade
3. Dan Duffy
4.Felipe Paulino
5.Bruce Chen.
We need two legit starters.
Very similar to my prediction...
1. Somebody
2. Somebody
3. Duffy/Paulino/Hochevar/Chen
4. Somebody
5. Somebody
That information is somewhat classified.
If you look at the Royals pitchers as a group they aren't too bad this year (compared to years past)
Greinke was an anomaly (without him we had the worst pitchers in baseball)
My point is differentiating between starters and relievers limits the possibilities. Why only consider Crow as a starter? We have some really good “relievers” for once and there has to be an above average starter in there.
I didn’t even realize how dominant Coleman was this year. He’s awesome! Holland has been lights out too albeit with less innings.
If I was in Moore’s position next year ( and I would guarantee a better performance BTW lol) I would try the following:
Soria
Duffy
Paulino
Hochevar
Crow
I like Chen, but if he finishes the season strong I see a team giving him a decent contract that we can spend the money on shoring up our offense (paying for a legitimate catcher) Or better yet we just trade him for something now (and Francis/Francour too, promote Cain Johnny G and banish Getz, etc)
our bullpen could still be ok/good with Coleman, Holland, Wood, Collins and we have guys like Teaford, Sisk (both lefties) Chavez and Tejeda. Hell even throw Davies in the bullpen to see what he’s got before he’s executed by RR.
I dont’ see the rational of us sucking next year because our rotation sucks when it doesn’t have to, if our bullpen is dynamite and offense is average again. Soria and Crow were both starters before. They are more valuable Royals as starters and one of them can make the transition. The last couple of years the bullpen sucked, but the rotation was garbage too (except Greinke) and I think the end of next eyar (with Odorizzi, Monty, even Lamb?? ready) there is no reason the Royals can’t have a good enough PITCHING STAFF with all the good pitchers we have.
We’ve never had good starting pitcher and its the reason the Royals lose 90 games every year. How about maximizing our pitching performance by converting our two best relievers into starters in 2012 and see what happens
by GobbleforCyoung on Jul 24, 2011 11:11 PM EDT reply actions
I agree.
I think it would be smart to at least try Soria in the rotation. He has 5 friggin pitches, the ability to mow guys down, and he doesn’t look like he’s not built to start. I would give him a good month in the rotation to see how he does.
Crow has adapted well to the majors, and considering that there are a bunch of other ML SP’s that throw two pitches that have succeeded, I don’t see the problem with trying him out.
I would say that there is a good chance that the Royals will contend next year, but an even better chance that they will in 2013.
I'm a 14 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
And on a side note
Melky now has a higher OPS than Butler.
Unfucking believable. How is that Bumgarner for Billy Butler trade sound now Billybeingbilly???? Still wouldn’t do it? A 30 million dollar waste for a guy who can’t play the field, can’t run and is struggling with slugging .400
by GobbleforCyoung on Jul 24, 2011 11:17 PM EDT reply actions
That would be a poor trade for the Royals.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 24, 2011 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions
you're claiming victory on an out of thin air trade idea?
by BeauJackson on Jul 24, 2011 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Killing time until time kills me
by EspeciallyK on Jul 25, 2011 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I can get behind this
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
by Lum on Jul 25, 2011 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
No it's not a random trade
We’ve talked about it before on this site. Butler is overrated and although Bumgarner wouldn’t be as good as he is now in the AL and in KC, he would be our best starter – better than Duffy.
This isn’t a poor trade by any measure (Butler can be replaced by Robinson/Kila, the Royals would get a player who could be an ace, they save 25 million or so, etc)
The Butler apologists are unreal here. .410 slugging % for the slowest baser runner in the AL and has no ability to play in the field
by GobbleforCyoung on Jul 25, 2011 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow, how is it possible that Butler's lack of HR's has completely escaped discussion on this board?
We’d better start the debate!
I'm not a Billy Hater
I think Billy can get in MUCH better shape and that would make him an even better hitter than he is currently.
But it does make SOME sense to look at trading him for a SP.
Simple logic
The difference between Butler & his replacement (Kila or Clint) is (in theory) less than the difference in talent between the SP that we could receive as compensation than their replacement in our rotation (Be it Hoch, Davies, Chen, Francis, really anybody but Duffy/Paulino/Monty).
Again, it would have to be the RIGHT SP…my suggestion in the ‘85 DVD contest thread was Shawn Marcum if we could negotiate a Long Term Deal w/ him prior to the trade…instant #1 on our staff w/ him being a Flyball pitcher in the Huge K, and it would make some sense for the Brewers as they will be losing Prince this offseason in all likelihood, and are looking like they will be pretty terrible next season, and are pretty devoid of 1B talent in their system – unless they move Gamel over there. It may take more than just Billy to get Marcum, but I’d throw in a decent P prospect too, as long as Milwaukee took all of Billy’s contract
BOOM! ROASTED!
Yes
1B/DH production is “easy” to replace.
The problem is finding someone to take a 1B for SP, simply because of the above statement.
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
do you realize how awful DH production has been the past couple years?
1b hasnt been that awesome either…its not that easy
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 25, 2011 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Thus why "easy" is in quotes
It’s in theory.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m definitely in favor of keeping Billy. 2WAR players don’t just sprout up from the ether. Even though they’re average, average is useful.
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
i think 2 WAR players are much easier to find
than cheap, cost effective, young RH hitters. Moore is going to have to go out and sign SP or trade for it while it’s still a prospect. The cost of a young, cost controlled ‘Ace’ is going to decimate the system
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 25, 2011 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
It's really hard to do any of that
Everything is hard
Why are things so hard :(
Also I know you didn’t mean it, but thinking the second comment being “decimate the system or develop one” makes the statement funny in a way.
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
if bumgarner is any good....
he’ll cost more than billy over the next few years…thats how arbitration works…
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 25, 2011 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
His stuff was great last night
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
Follow me on Twitter if you want: Lum_SM
I'd like to see a tandem of Crow and Holland pitch 3-4 innings each
I’d give that tandem a spot in the rotation and use them just like that. No joke.
Actually next year I’d give Crow a try in the rotation, used in the traditional way. But if that didn’t work because he melted down after the first time through the lineup because two pitches weren’t enough to carry him, then I’d go with the two-pitcher tandem.
I’d consider pairing someone with Hochevar as well. This is one of my crazy, outside-the-box pet ideas.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 26, 2011 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I've always wanted to see a team carry a tandem starter thing for their 5th starter slot
It’s just too different though to catch on with an MLB manager, and If the roster is properly constructed your starters should probably be good enough to do well throughout the rotation and not rely on tandem starters for a slot.
SBN's most random and mysterious lurker
though I do love Royals Review
Follow me on Twitter if you want: Lum_SM
So this is a six-man rotation...
that works on a five-day schedule?
That information is somewhat classified.
Basically
A hypothetical rotation would be (in no particular order):
Francis
Hochevar
Duffy
Paulino
Crow+Holland
And, again hypothetically, 2012 could be something like:
Duffy
Paulino
Hochevar+Wood
Crow+Holland
A #5 SP from the pool of meh pitchers, or a SP from FA or trade
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 27, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
That doesn't make sense and is not going to work
On numbers alone, the Royals need a quantity of relievers. A better outside the box idea and it shouldn’t even be considered one is to just transition both Crow and Soria to the rotation (ostensibly for 2 slots, but actually a competition for the starter/closer roles). Having both make the adjustment acts as a hedge for either. Considering they were both good starters in their minor league careers and clearly are talented pitchers, one of them should pan out and become an above average starter; the other can slide back into the closer’s role. Just selecting one (As DumDum has with Crow), if he fails, would torpedo the Royals chances of competing. They have no chance without a decent starting rotation so every internal option for the rotation should be exhausted IMO.
Soria and Crow are two of the Royals best pitchers and its a shame their talents are minimized by pitching as relievers, especially for a team that will not compete without quality starting pitching as the past several years have demonstrated
by GobbleforCyoung on Jul 27, 2011 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
LMAO
Nice try at a save. Yeah, these guys aren’t exactly proven starters even in the minors. Soria had a good start in the Mexican summer league, and Crow pitched well in college. Look, Soria doesn’t appear to me to have the durability to be a starter. I wold have tried it 2-3 years ago, but not now. And Crow doesn’t have the pitches or control. I’d give him a shot, but he’s unlikely to succeed. But with two pitches, I think he could do well for 3-4 innings. Pair him with another such pitcher and you’ve got a good tandem.
And you dismiss my idea with the deep analysis that “the Royals need a quantity of relievers.” With 12-13 pitchers on staff, there are enough relievers, especially considering that the tandems would likely be able to go deep into games. Giving things a little thought helps.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jul 27, 2011 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I LOVE this idea.
Sadly the CYA principle runs strong in MLB managers.
by Pointed Stick on Jul 29, 2011 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
