Muppet Thoughts
The minor league season is over and the Arizona Fall League has yet to begin. Baseball
Glad you asked.
Next year’s Free Agent options, the current 2010 payroll and some interesting service time tidbits, why using FIP or any other metric to argue Cahill’s place in Oakland’s 2010 rotation is missing the point, a moment of praise to Rajai Davis’ base running skills and… I don’t know… whatever I bloody well want.
If that sounds interesting to you then I’ll see you on the flip side.
Let’s talk about money.
Money, money, money, money, money, money.
Let’s face it, we live in a capitalist society and (most of us on AN, anyways) in a country with a WTF?!?! economy that makes risky investments a rather unattractive idea. The San Diego Padres, the Texas Rangers and the Chicago Cubs are just 3 recent examples of how quickly an organization’s financial situation can change. The 2009 A’s opened up the season with a $62.3 million payroll and we know that Wolff and Fisher don’t consider the team to be a public philanthropy. The
Looking at the current roster and trying to anticipate the arbitration cases of 8 different players, it appears to me that the A’s have $38 million committed in salary to next year’s roster. (Keep in mind that I’ve tried to pad that figure, ‘cause it’s always easier to pocket any left over cash than it is to find more cash when the bills are due. Also, I’ve got a bit of a thing for round numbers and counting by quarters.) Let’s look at those arbitration eligible players. Eric Munson and Edgar Gonzalez might be best described as fringe level big league players, but the only way the A’s could insure that they could retain their services for next season would be to offer them arbitration. Otherwise, the A’s would need to release them and try to bid for their services as free agents. I think that is the more likely scenario, as the A’s should be more interested in finding cheap vets they can sign to minor league deals than in keeping replacement-level talent at inflated rates.
Santiago Casilla is eligible for arbitration for the first time but the combination of his injuries, his ineffectiveness and the depth of power RH arms in the A’s farm system leads me to believe that AKA Jairo Garcia will be moving on to another team. Joey Devine is coming back from season ending elbow surgery and that will probably keep his 2010 salary down, although I am still penciling in a raise to $750K. Michael Wuertz is due a huge pay bump, at least doubling his $1.1 million 2009 salary. He didn’t get many opportunities to close and arbiters tend to be distracted by shiny things like saves, so I’m figuring he’ll earn a $2.5 million salary for next year. Before I move on to the arby-eligible hitters, I want to point out that Dana Eveland is no longer looking at arbitration for next season. His early season demotion hit his service time tally very hard and he simply doesn’t have the days in to qualify for arbitration. This means the A’s have the option to bring Eveland back at $420K next season. The only downside is it looks like (assuming I’ve counted things right) that the A’s used Eveland’s last option in 2009 and if he doesn’t pitch well enough to make the Opening Day big league roster next year the A’s would have to expose him to waivers before they could send him to the minors. Which wouldn’t be a great loss, but it is a factor to consider before deciding to invest the time and effort in giving Eveland another chance next Spring. Perhaps the coaching and innings would be better served going to another option?
Scott Hairston hasn’t performed like the A’s had hoped since they acquired him from the Padres but his early season numbers will insure a pay increase for next season. I think his late season injuries and his struggling 2nd half performance will prevent him from doubling his salary but I can see him collecting $2 million next year. Rajai Davis has only a half season of excellence to make him some money and I don’t think that UZR gets factored into the arbitration process but 40 SB is sexy and shiny. I expect
Altogether, a $38 million commitment to the 2010 payroll.
That means the A’s have some spending money next year. But where to spend it and how much is there to spend? I doubt the A’s are going to bump the payroll beyond the $62.3 million figure from 2009 and in fact I expect to see it drop by roughly $10 million. Where am I getting that low-50’s number? Call it a gut reaction to the state of the team and the AL West, plus the lack of intriguing free agent options. The A’s are looking at a serious influx of position talent by the end of next season and it seems unlikely that the team would invest heavily in free agent vets that could potentially block the young talent and/or become expensive bench options. There are obvious holes in the roster but little in the way of value to be had in the current free agent crop.
One of the places where a major investment and change would be welcomed (by the fans, anyway) is at 3rd base. Eric Chavez is in the last guaranteed year of his contract and has barely made it on to the field over the last 3 years. There are at least 4 credible options on the free agent market that could give the A’s an immediate boost at the hot corner. Troy Glaus, Mark DeRosa, Adrian Beltre and Chone Figgins all offer the right mix of offense and defense that teams demand at 3rd base these days. DeRosa offers some defensive versatility and enough bat that his team will be looking to find a place to play him. The downside to DeRosa is he’s a Type A free agent and he turns 35 next February, meaning his decline could come swift and soon. Glaus is coming off a shoulder injury but should be ready to go next Spring and at 33 might be looking for a 1 year deal to re-establish himself before going for 1 last big payday. He’s got enough glove to handle 3rd base should Chavez be unable to make it onto the field and his bat would play well at 1st base in the unlikely scenario that Chavez is healthy.
Figgins is intriguing because of his versatility and out of all the big ticket 3rd base options he’s actually healthy! He’ll be 32 next season and is probably looking for a 4 year deal. The cool thing about Figgins is you don’t have to worry about him blocking some stud prospect’s path, he’s got the athleticism and experience to play almost anywhere on the field. The downside is he’s a Type A free agent (yeah, me loving that 2nd round pick) and his name has been mentioned with so many teams that if even half of them are truly interested in him the A’s would be in a bidding war to land him. Beltre is battling injuries this year but he doesn’t turn 31 until the beginning of next season. Still, he picked a bad year to hit like crap. His glove is still top notch but the reality is the A’s gave up on Jack Hannahan (a quality defender at 3rd base and according to UZR a near equal to Beltre) to keep Adam Kennedy’s bat in the line-up. It’s going to take at least a 3 year deal to land Beltre (I’m guessing 3/$27 million but I could be way off) and when you think about it, the A’s would be paying all that cash for Beltre’s bat. Another thing to consider, if you believe in Brett Wallace the 3rd baseman at all, signing Beltre creates a problem.
There are a couple other 3rd base options that get brought up around AN on occasion. Adam Kennedy made a decent stop gap option at 3rd base this season and the A’s have already said they’d consider bringing him back. Akinori Iwamura is one of those under-rated gems that everyone knows about and thus the pursuit will resemble a piranha feeding frenzy. Joe Crede is on his way out of
If the A’s are looking to make a free agent splash, the value looks to be in the starting pitching ranks. If the D’backs decide to bid bon voyage to Brandon Webb I say the A’s need to go all in and offer him a big money deal to bring him to
But do the A’s really need to invest potentially limited funds into the starting rotation? I mean, adding a healthy Brandon Webb is pretty much a no-brainer, especially if you can get him for a discounted rate and not the $20+ million annual C.C. Sabathia is getting from the Yankees. The answer seems to lie in how you feel about Trevor Cahill. If you hear his name and think rainbows and puppies than you’re probably disinclined to spend free agent dollars on a big ticket pitcher. If hearing "Cahill" causes you to grind your teeth than you’re probably wondering why I didn’t list Jason Marquis as a viable free agent option. Me? I think puppies.
I’ve heard the arguments for sending Cahill down to AAA to start next season. I personally feel that the best place for Cahill to work on his breaking stuff is at the big league level, however if the coaching staff disagrees then I’m more than happy to yield to their wisdom. But I’m willing to bet Curt Young isn’t spending his time on AN arguing about how Trevor Cahill needs AAA seasoning. The principle argument on AN in demoting Cahill centers around his FIP (or tRA but either number will do) courtesy of Fangraphs. FIP, for those who have ignored this discussion so far but are now drawn in by my dulcet tones, is essentially what we could expect the pitcher’s ERA to be if we could factor out team defense. Fangraphs lists 77 starting pitchers as throwing enough innings/pitching enough games to qualify for their statistical leader board. Hit the button to compare FIP and proceed to the last page, ‘cause as of 9/22 Trevor Cahill ranked last in baseball with a FIP of 5.30.
It’s a fairly simple logic stream. You’ve got a young pitcher whom we all knew was being rushed posting the worst luck-independent numbers in baseball. Why waste his service time watching him get his butt kicked when we can send him down to AAA where he belongs? My problem with that logic is, that while Cahill’s FIP score is an accurate interpretation of his 2009 season performance it doesn’t actually reflect how well he pitched this year. We knew that there were going to be days when Cahill was going to get his head handed to him on a platter. The guy had barely any experience outside of A-ball and his mechanics where inconsistent. His minor league performance carried indicators (BB/9 rate) that his game needed more polish. We knew all this and still the A’s put him on their 2009 Opening Day roster.
So why are folks so intent on punishing Cahill for living up to our expectations? I looked at the box scores of the 30 games Cahill had pitched in this season, and in 9 of those contests he either allowed 5 or more runs (earned/unearned, doesn’t matter on the scoreboard) and/or failed to pitch a full 5 innings. I don’t care what metric you choose to believe in, there isn’t a baseball fan among us who wouldn’t say that those games represent a failure on the part of the pitcher in giving his team a chance to win. Cahill earned his bottom feeding FIP in those 9 games. When you look at his record of performance you see a wide variation in outcomes and all FIP does is draw a line and say "this is the average outcome". And there’s nothing wrong with that except that it doesn’t provide a full, detailed picture of what Cahill did this season. So I asked a second question: How good did Trevor Cahill pitch this year?
Unfortunately, before I could answer my question I had to figure out how I was going to answer my question! A few years back someone (I don’t care whom) started talking about Quality Starts. The basic premise was a SP got credited with a QS anytime he lasted a minimum of 6 IP and gave up no more than 3 ER. This would help balance out those days when a pitcher just got crushed and his numbers would (unfairly?, undeservedly?) drag down his overall line. I don’t know if this was in response to Coors Field or maybe because it was the Steroid era, but while the basic idea had some merit the parameters sucked. 3 ER in 6 IP? That’s a 4.50 ERA, not exactly what I call quality from my SP.
So I decided to apply the same basic concept to the 77 SP on Fangraphs’ leader board pages, only this time I made the rules more strict. No more than 2 runs (earned/unearned count the same on the scoreboard) over a minimum of 6 IP. Then I decided to add an extra tier, so 3 runs allowed over a minimum of 7 full IP would also count on the Good side. Then I went over the game logs of every qualifying SP (further explaining the 9/22 cut-off date) and simply added up how many HQS (High Quality Starts… yeah, I expect a point deduction from the Russian judge for my lack of creativity) to see how well Mr. Worst-FIP-in-Baseball pitched.
Trevor Cahill pitched 14 HQS, tying him with 8 other SP including Cole Hamels, John Lackey, Scott Feldman and Yovani Gallardo.
14 HQS is also higher score than the performances from Andy Pettite, Barry Zito, Brett Anderson, Carlos Zambrano, Clayton Kershaw, James Shields, Rich Porcello, Roy Oswalt and 18 other big league SP who posted better FIP than Trevor Cahill.
I am not saying that this means Trevor Cahill is a better pitcher than all these guys. I am saying that on the days when Cahill’s talent outweighed his inexperience he pitched like a legitimate big league SP. And here’s the thing about inexperience, it goes away after a time. The 174 (and counting) IP that Cahill has accumulated this year with the A’s has been an invaluable learning experience for him and it should make him less prone to the epic disasters he created 9 times as a raw and unready rookie. Trevor Cahill is far from a finished project and it may be that next year the A’s will decide that the best place for him to work on his breaking ball or his mechanics or his interview clichés is in Sacramento and I’ll be fine with that.
But don’t tell me his FIP dictates the A’s purchase his bus ticket 6 months in advance.
One last things as this post has gone far longer than I intended… I mentioned this in another thread but I feel it bears repeating. With a little over half-a-season’s worth of playing time Bill James ranks Rajai Davis as the 4th best base runner in all of baseball. This is counting Davis’ stolen base and base running performance, and on a team lacking in power those skills are very important (even in a non-starting role) to help create runs.
Alright, I’ve rattled on long enough. Sorry for the lateness of today’s Front Page write up but folks seemed to be enjoying the Davis and Holliday themed articles already up. Besides, you can’t rush greatness.
Or in my case… my typing.
And thank you for your support.
7 recs |
165 comments
|
Comments
Based on who is likely to come up next year
and who we currently have, unless we’re getting a big name (i.e. someone like Webb), I don’t see any reason to spend money on the free agent market. Minor league deals, incentive deals for one year, are fine. I don’t see next year’s team being a playoff caliber team. They’ll be better than this year, they’ll have a lot of promise, and if everything goes right they could make the playoffs, but I wouldn’t really focus hard on that. I’d spend the year getting everyone as much experience as possible and see where they can take us. Come the trade deadline if things look good, you might try to fill a hole or two at that point, but don’t block the next wave regardless of whether someone like Cahill or Wallace starts in AAA or the Majors.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2009 12:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff.
Question though: If Cahill’s FIP (or tRA, whichever you want) are saying that he’s been pretty bad, but he’s had 14 start going 7 innings with 3 or less runs, doesn’t that mean he’s basically getting lucky? I mean, it’s not that hard to just look at the numbers and say Cahill isn’t striking out enough guys and he’s giving up too many walks and homers, regardless of what metrics you want to point to. He’s not missing bats often enough.
and to respond to this:
I am not saying that this means Trevor Cahill is a better pitcher than all these guys. I am saying that on the days when Cahill’s talent outweighed his inexperience he pitched like a legitimate big league SP.
I agree. There have been starts that have shown Cahill’s talent. The problem is he’s not yet able to string together 4, 5, or 6 of those in a row. It’s more of a surprise when he pitches well, as opposed to a surprise if he goes out and gets shelled. The big leagues isn’t the place to refine your stuff and get to the point where you can string together “good starts”, especially for a 21 year old who has never pitched in the high minors.
Starting him in Sacramento isn’t an insult to him. It’s putting him in the best position to succeed.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 30, 2009 12:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Stringing those together would be nice
But isn’t it the overall number that’s most important?
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 30, 2009 3:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Cahill might need to go to Sacramento next season
I object to those who’ve already bought his bus ticket. They’re ignoring the work he’ll do in the offseason and in Spring Training. You want more K’s? He needs to start throwing his breaking ball again.
We’ve essentially seen two versions of Cahill this season. 1 was the kid who should have been in the minors this season. The other (and forgive me if this gets convoluted) was the rookie pitcher we were expecting to see in 2010. Cahill has the right combination of youth, talent and now big league experience to make a radical jump in performance next season much like Mark Mulder did between his rookie and sophomore seasons. I’m not guaranteeing it happens but I’m willing to give him the chance to make it happen.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 30, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For better or worse....
I think the A’s and Cahill are now linked. One’s success depends a great deal on the other so to say. So my view would be that Mr. Cahill should be given every opportunity to succeed on the MLB franchise level. It serves no useful purpose for him to develop a Halsey type resentment at being shuffled back and forth. The A’s elected to call him up early, so they should continue to show him that they have a high level of confidence in his abilities. If he is sent to Sac, I say make damn sure that he knows that he himself pitched his way there during ST.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Sep 30, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, because it's far better for the psyche to be demoted because you sucked ass
than to be demoted because you need to add a third pitch to your arsenal.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think if you frame it that way there's no room for discussion
Can I guarantee Cahill should start in AAA next year? No.
Do I think that, based on what he’s done so far, he should start in AAA next year? Yes.
Also, it isn’t just that his results have been bad. His process has also been bad (I forget whose fanpost that was, but it was an enlightening one). I do not think he should be pitching for the A’s until he can consistently execute his pitches. Once he can do that, I’m all for the “improve against the best competition” position. If he can do that this offseason, great. He isn’t doing it now, though, and until he does I think he should be working on it in the minors where the terrible outcomes that come with changing mechanics don’t ruin next season for the A’s.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 30, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
And if the many, many arguments that advocate Cahill to AAA were made
as you just made your statement then I wouldn’t have a problem with this. But too many people have been much more harsh. They’ve said he’s pitched like crap and use FIP to support the claim.
2009 FIP to 2010 ERA assumes 2 things.
1)That the pitcher’s luck will change. That’s reasonable.
2)That the pitcher’s skill level will remain relatively unchanged. Given Cahill’s age and pedigree, we have no reason to believe that he’s at a plateau. If anything, we should be assuming his skill level to increase.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 30, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, on that issue, here's what I think
1) He absolutely has pitched like crap this year
2) He is very likely to improve going forward
3) He will probably not improve enough over the offseason to go from “crap” to “useful”
I do agree that, after his mechanical issues are ironed out, he is likely to improve faster in Oakland than in Sacramento. I do not know whether ironing out mechanical issues will make him good enough to deserve an Oakland roster spot.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 30, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
This, this, this
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would also add in addition to my rec that I would prefer not to lose years of control waiting for the crap to useful transformation in OAK
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I disagree with your opening claim
I think he has had more than a handful of much-worse-than-crap games and that drags down his overall line. That overall line masks the success he has had in his rookie season and with the experience he has gained this year, plus continued (and necessary) improvements in his game I think there is the very real potential for his performance to go from “crap” (as you term it) to extremely useful (if not downright good) in an extremely short amount of time.
Guess it’s up to Cahill to show which of us is right.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's call a R/9 of less than 3.5 good, a R/9 of above 5.5 bad, and something in between average.
Now let’s use tRA gamelogs…
Good starts: 5
Average starts: 10
Bad starts: 17
Furthermore, let’s call a R/9 above 9 as ‘crap’.
Crap starts: 8
by Graham on Oct 1, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said he was a great pitcher...
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By that definition, there has probably never been a crappy pitching season in MLB history
I’m actually interested to know if you can find one
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 1, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Crappy" is such a definitive statistical marker.
Although I’m not exactly sure what I said that led you to that conclusion.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was the reference to Mark Mulder...
…lost on the people who you’re debating with? Because I think that that’s a hellofa defense for keeping someone in the bigs who, according to the naysayers, isn’t even useful.
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 30, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exceptions and outliers are acknowledged
But you’re damned if you try to find parallels.
And to be honest, I don’t know if its fair to compare Mulder and Cahill.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FIP correlates very very well with next year's ERA
Can you say the same about this HQS metric you’ve coined? I’m guessing the answer is “no,” not least because it’s not even on the same scale. How many runs is a HQS worth? Well, it depends— 7 innings and 0 runs appears to be worth 2 more runs than 7 innings and 2 runs, but they’re both credited as one HQS.
I’d be thrilled to see a graph of HQS in 2008 mapped against ERA in 2009 (and a similar one for FIP in 2008 mapped against ERA) but reading between the lines of your piece, I get the sense that even creating such a graph would require several hours of manual labor. Which is of course the problem when one starts inventing new stats. Well, it’s one problem, anyway. “Reinventing the wheel” is another one.
Basically, the problem here is this: pitchers who pitch like Trevor Cahill pitched this season tend strongly to go out the next season and get lit up like Molotov cocktails. History does not determine the future inevitably, but we all know the adage about what happens to people who ignore it.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 12:11 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
“FIP correlates very very well with next year’s ERA”
Edwin Jackson’s 08 FIP was 4.88 and his 09 ERA is 3.36. Its not a full proof projector by any means.
“the problem here is this: pitchers who pitch like Trevor Cahill pitched this season tend strongly to go out the next season and get lit up like Molotov cocktails”
Youre completely ignoring the fact that the kind of pitchers youre talking about are the chronically hopeless, bad-at-baseball types, Daniel Cabrera, Scott Olson, Brendan Backe etc. Do you think Rick Porcello needs to go back to AAA too? His FIP is pretty terrible, theres no difference between him and Cahill. When you have super young guys, you dont expect them to be great everyday big leaguers and let them slog through the life until theyre 24-27 or so then they get it all together. Weird things will happen, Justin Verlander wont become a high-K guy until he’s 26, etc. which is exactly when I expect Cahill to be pitching closer to his ceiling. Its perfectly fine to assume Jamie Moyer isnt going to drop a 2.00 ERA next year, but its rather foolish to be over-analyzing a rushed prospect the way you are, and its just bizarre to think after 180 IP and making clear progress to the trained eye, to put a guy like that back at AAA.
*Cahill is also not the worst FIP in baseball, Jeremy Guthrie, Volstad and Looper are worse. Joe Saunders is right under him and
by PL78 on Sep 30, 2009 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I watched a lot of Loop
He’s not awful and he can be quite good. He’s got a mutual option for 6.5 million I believe. The chatter by the various media guys is that he probably won’t agree to it because he can get better money.
by JetSam on Sep 30, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you just psychologically incapable of distinguishing between the exception and the rule?
Every time I make a general statement, your response is to cherrypick some tiny exception to it. It’s really annoying. Yes, I am aware that FIP and next year’s ERA do not correlate 1 to 1. Thank you.
As for the rest: 1. One would hope that Cahill does not become one of the “chronically hopeless,” but right now his pitch arsenal is very reminiscent of one; 2. Rick Porcello absolutely should be in the minors right now—the only difference between him and Cahill is that Porcello is pitching for a desperate, aging team staring down its last chance at contention; 3. if the A’s have to let Cahill stink for three more years before he becomes decent, they might as well trade him now and spare themselves the bad performance; 4. apropos of that, Edwin Jackson sucked llama ovaries for four seasons before finally putting it together for his third franchise— not exactly the kind of example you really want to be using; 5. since your analysis of “clear progress” seems to be based on a bunch of outdated, crappy statistics and not on the opinion of actual “trained eyes,” viz, scouts, I think it can safely be relegated to irrelevance.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
no, im just thoroughly against your trying to predict the future based off sabermetrics that arent 100% flawless
but you seem to talk about them all like they are.
predicting the future in baseball is retarded. Cahill could easily win the Cy Young next year or be as awful as you think his numbers are. We dont know, and using long winded predictors to try is irrelevant.
by PL78 on Sep 30, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that this appeared on an A's blog is either really funny or incredibly depressing
To preserve my sanity I shall go with option one.
by Graham on Sep 30, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Ya-hooooOOO
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 30, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I endorse this statement,
Signed,
DFA
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm turning a lot of posts green in this thread.
I won't heal, given time.
I won't try to change your mind.
I won't feel better in the cold light of day.
But I wouldn't stop you if you wanted to stay.
by danmerqury on Sep 30, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really make arguing against yourself easy
when you make blatantly self-contradicting statements in consecutive posts.
Youre completely ignoring the fact that the kind of pitchers youre talking about are the chronically hopeless, bad-at-baseball types, Daniel Cabrera, Scott Olson, Brendan Backe etc.
predicting the future in baseball is retarded. Cahill could easily win the Cy Young next year or be as awful as you think his numbers are.
So, from this, we conclude that you believe Brandon Backe could win the Cy Young next year.
I rest my case.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is what we in the business call Pwnage.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cut some slack
The statements are only contradictory in a literal sense. The statement he is making is that Cahill is good at baseball and has little track record and could breakout. We can’t know if he will or will not.
We do know that Brandon Backe is not good at baseball and will not win the Cy.
Otherwise, I mean, yeah I agree with you.
by dscel on Sep 30, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I fairly sure PT wouldn't be so agressive
had this been the first time PL78 had said/done things like this, but it’s growing into an odd habit and attempting to actually discuss it more “politely” seems to be a bit difficult because he keeps making those types of statements to back up previous ones a lot.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see statements that I consider debatable
but i wouldn’t because its always a battle and it looks to me like argument for arguments sake.
by JetSam on Sep 30, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FINALLY!!
WHY is that so hard to see?
See, dscei gets it, why cant anyone else? Is arguing in your guys jeans or something? If you guys quit bowing to the sabergods for like one second, realized that there are OUTLIERS in every one of these things, maybe youd be a little less arrogant in your claims.
by PL78 on Sep 30, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The definition of an outlier is something which could not have been predicted ahead of time
…
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you have any evidence that suggests that any of the multitude of players you claim is an outlier actually is?
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You seem to have very little understanding of how statistics work
And NO, it has nothing to do with “bowing to the sabergods”. Consider the lottery. You have what a one in a billion chance at winning, but oh, look, someone HAS won, therefore you’re going to win it the next time you play. That is quite literally the argument you’re actually making. Now, is it possible that Cahill could be an outlier as you want to argue? Everyone here will acknowledge he could be, but what they’re saying is that that is statistically improbable and horribly stupid to bank on it. Now, does that mean you don’t play the lotto, well, who knows. But that does mean, if you are going to play it, you do so within your own means, and in the case of Cahill, while he could be the exception to the rule, you’re better off playing it smart AND safe by planning on him needing more seasoning first. I’m am not the least bit saber-smart, if you will, but I do work within an industry that is stat-heavy and when you get a first hand look at just how they work and literally how predictive they can be, you’d see why it’s smart to play the percentages.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And as a corollary to this
as a small market team, the A’s front office has to be even more careful to play with the odds on their sides – they cannot afford, in general (I’m not talking about Cahill here) to take high priced low probability / high upside risks, in the same way, say, that the Yankees can
by bobnothing on Sep 30, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel
If I’m doing anything that creative it’s trying to find out if there’s a pattern behind the outliers.
Which isn’t what I set out to do. What I wanted to do is show that Cahill did not pitch as uniformly bad as his FIP suggests, that his season long performance included several bright spots and in fact he ended up having more quality performances than several more established and bigger named pitchers who all had better FIPs.
Too many times the theme on AN has been “Cahill sucks, look at his FIP.” FIP is an accurate interpretation of Cahill’s statistical line for the 2009 season. However, it is not the best way to describe his actual pitching performance over the course of the year. Cahill’s learning curve was steeper than most big league pitchers and we have only the A’s to blame for that. His struggles are reflected in his FIP. But that 1 number masks the quality performances he had over the course of the 30 game sample I looked at.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 30, 2009 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take on Cahill is thus:
Do the A’s think they can develop him into a decent starter (if the answer is no, then it’s all immaterial)?
Assuming that the answer is ‘Yes’, then they need to decide where the best place for him to develop is.
Now, here’s where the A’s current situation (ie, sucking a little) affords them some flexibility. Normally, if you knew a pitcher was going to cost your team a significant number of games, you’d send them down to AAA to do their homework there, where it won’t damage the major league club. However, if the A’s have no intention of competing anyway, the amount of games that Cahill throws away with hanging curve balls really doesn’t matter.
So – which will provide Cahill with the steepest learning curve? Facing major league hitters every five days (this carries consequences both positive and negative, of course), and working with the A’s hitting coaches, or back down in AAA, where the pressure is less and he can pitch his way through poor starts without being relived early.
Myself, I don’t know what the answer to this is.
by bobnothing on Sep 30, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but...
if he needs his MiLB strikeout pitch (curve) yet he is not throwing it in MLB games, why is he playing MLB?
He shoud be working on it, but isn’t. They could be a Curt young pan we don’t know about, but its a mystery, to me anyway, why he is trying to play marjor leaguer without one of his plus pitches. If it sucked for the majority of the year, maybe give it up in june and work on the other pitches. NOw he’s done that, throw the curve for the rest of his starts. Not that it isn’t too late now.
has anyone looked at last nights start to see if he thre the curve?
by Future Ed on Sep 30, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I agree - If the best place to work on it really is AAA, then, I'm all in favor of that
I just don’t think that one of the considerations should be ‘does it impact the ability of the A’s to win games in 2010’, it should be ’what’s the best way to make Tim a better pitcher’
by bobnothing on Sep 30, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to redefine "quality start" so that it's not park/luck/defense dependent
6 or more innings, at least 2/3 as many strikeouts as innings pitched, 1/3 or less as many walks as innings pitched, 1 or fewer home run.
How many does Cahill have?
Four. In 32 games.
Let’s compare to someone we know is good like Roy Oswalt:
Eleven.
Yeah, no.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I like your version of the quality start. Still a bit too vague to be completely reliable, but at least it accounts to some degree what the pitcher actually does in the game itself instead of relying solely on outcome. Might need to add a WHIP factor in there too and I’m not 100% sure about the need for 2/3 Ks per inning pitched but I get why you wanted to include it.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons
by dtownmbrown on Sep 30, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really the K/BB ratio is more important than the K/9 and BB/9 separately.
Your formula would exclude excellent control pitchers (strike-throwers as they’re often called) who have good FIPs, with low strike-out numbers.
Since the basic formula for FIP is (13*HR)+(3*BB) – (2*K) / IP + 3.20, let’s use these numbers. A quality start will be, for arbitrary purposes (since of course this is an arbitrary excercise) an FIP of 4.00 or better, so above league average by a little more than a marginal amount.
Moreover, let’s say that a quality start must be at least 6 innings.
This means that the number of homeruns * 13 + the number of walks * 3 minus the number of strikeouts * 2 must add up to 5.4 or less over 6 innings.
Let’s break this down to a set of if/then statements:
—If a pitcher gives up 0 HRs in 6 innings:
-and walk 0 batters, they must strikeout 0+.
-and walk 1 batter, they must strikeout 0+.
-and walk 2 batters, they must strikeout 1+.
-and walk 3 batters, they must strikeout 2+.
-and walk 4 batters, they must strikeout 4+.
-and walk 5 batters, they must strikeout 5+.
-and walk 6 batters, they must strikeout 7+.
—If a pitcher gives up 1 HR in 6 innings:
-and walk 0 batters, they must strikeout 4+.
-and walk 1 batter, they must strikeout 6+.
-and walk 2 batters, they must strikeout 7+.
-and walk 3 batters, they must strikeout 9+.
—If a pitcher gives up 2 HRs in 6 innings:
-and walk 0 batters, they must strike out 11+.
-and walk 1 batter, they must strike out 12+.
etc.
As you can see, the HR rate drastically outweighs the K/BB rate in FIP, which is the main problem with your redefinition of the quality start, PT.
I don’t have the time to figure out how to calculate who had the most of my FIP dependent quality starts in 2009, though I’d bet that it would rank Cahill a little bit higher than PTs because Cahill’s distribution of HRs at least seems to be in clumps of 2 or 3 a game, and then a fair amount of games with 0.
"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau
by King Richard on Sep 30, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I like that
Someone who walks 6 batters, regardless of whether they didn’t give up a run (including a HR) and struck out , say 10, didn’t earn a quality start.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In 1986, Joe Cowley, then pitching for the PaleHose, threw a no hitter...
…against the Angels while walking 7 and striking out 8 and giving up an earned run on a SF [box score here]
Question: was this a QS? I say that it was. in fact, I’d take it every single time. And I wouldn’t stop there; if I knew a pitcher would consistently go exactly six and give up 3 earned runs, he’d be my #2 starter in a rotation and the team would have an above .500 average in games that he started.
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 30, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only because his whip was under 1 and a lot of luck that that worked out
It was a special thing, that much, I agree with. But you have to pretty lucky to get a no hitter, even luckier to get one with 6 walks. On the whole, I don’t see that as a quality start regardless of the exciting outcome, even if, like you, I’d take it every time. I’d take a 20 – 19 win every time too, doesn’t mean it would be pretty or ideal.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really fair to draw the comp of a team effort [20-19]...
…to a measurement that, for the most part, isolates just the pitching performance. And, if you were to take the performance every single time, as you admitted to above, why the hell would it not be ideal (I can understand it not being pretty)?
by LowcountryJoe on Oct 2, 2009 2:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it doesn't isolate the pitching performance from the team
Mark Buerhle pitched a perfect game because DeWayne Wise made an insane play on a ball that should have been a home run.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 2, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure why you replied to my comment
it didn’t seem to fit into the exchange so far.
by LowcountryJoe on Oct 2, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really fair to draw the comp of a team effort [20-19]…
…to a measurement that, for the most part, isolates just the pitching performance
It does nothing of the sort.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 2, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it does.
It does nothing of the sort.
The QS stat measures a pitching performance, does it not? One should assume that a MLB team’s defense plays fairly consistently from game to game. Now, all teams’ defenses are not the same but, for the most part, the variability between all the teams of MLB defenses are not going to be radically different from one another — to the point where a full earned run per game difference is going to realized. So, the QS does seem to isolate the pitching performances well enough for the frequency of QS (the QS%) to be meaningful in regards to how often a SP keeps an average-scoring team in the game.
by LowcountryJoe on Oct 3, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with the heavy weighing of HRs
is that they are, by a huge margin, the most random of the three FIP inputs. I tend not to use unadjusted FIP in analyzing pitchers because it’s SO heavily weighted toward home runs— I prefer xFIP and tRA as a general rule.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
by your own measure of QS though
that automatically counts against him, as Cahill clustered quite a few bombs in his starts
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh
If you throw home runs completely out of the equation, you get exactly one additional Cahill quality start— a game in Texas where he struck out 6 and walked 2 with 2 bombs in 6 innings.
Most of the games where he gave up multibombs were games where he was otherwise awful.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If two pitchers have the same K/BB ratio
the one with more Ks and BBs is better. A 9 K/9, 3.5 BB/9 pitcher is much much better than a 3 K/9, 1 BB/9 pitcher.
My contribution to this thread is that trying to rework QSs in whatever way is for the most part a complete waste of time.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 30, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amazing how you remove runs from the equation
Which means you’ve found a wonderful way to find FIP quality starts, but you’ve done nothing to actually describe how the game played out.
If runs don’t count per your example, then why do they keep score?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 30, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because runs are team dependent and teams win or lose games
by Graham on Sep 30, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
AN needs more Graham
Rec’d.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 30, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
SBN needs a way to give a thumbs down as well as up
by JetSam on Sep 30, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
It’d be pretty funny. Way too mean-spirited, but it’d be fun for a while.
I won't heal, given time.
I won't try to change your mind.
I won't feel better in the cold light of day.
But I wouldn't stop you if you wanted to stay.
by danmerqury on Sep 30, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what color you'd give that, red?
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the more negative marks
the darker the backgroud gets until it is totally obscured
by Future Ed on Sep 30, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
When did the pitcher stop being part of the team?
Blatantly ignoring runs that score other than by HR essentially blames the other 8 defenders for those runs. I think there’s merit in considering the factors PT suggests, but not at the expense of excluding how many times the other team crossed home plate.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is isolating individual performance from team performance
PT’s trying to use a FIP based formula, which looks only at the things a pitcher controls. Fair enough in eliminating teammates, but that goes too far in my opinion. Your method, on the other hand, seems to be ignoring the problem. Now there wouldn’t be anything wrong with this if we didn’t have mounds and mounds of data proving that FIP is better at predicting run prevention than ERA is. It’s not close, and the study is easy enough that you can do it in Excel in about ten minutes.
Paul’s way is better than using straight up runs.
Now, this does not invalidate your concerns with completely ignoring a pitcher’s responsibility on balls in play, but mitigation of those concerns will not come about by jumping back to runs allowed, otherwise we’re bouncing back and forth around the target. We want something in between.
I propose the following:
Use the FIP inputs, weighted back down to their pure run values (-0.11, 0.34, 1.40 for K, BB & HBP, HR). Then for all balls in play, penalise the pitcher a set number of runs and credit him with a set number of outs based on league average runs and outs per ball in play (I don’t have those numbers, but it would be a quick find). We’re then left with a number of expected runs and expected outs, similar to what tRA does but far quicker to calculate once someone finds the values for all BIP. From then it’s trivial to come up with a quality start finder using whichever runs/innings parameters you like.
FIP does what I described above implicitly by anchoring itself around ERA, but for something like this where it’s not a rate stat, you’d have to pay close attention to balls in play.
by Graham on Oct 1, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I've said elsewhere, AN needs more Graham
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 1, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First off
I’m not trying to predict run prevention in 2010. All I was trying to do with my initial post was look at how Cahill pitched this year. I don’t think his FIP or tRA from this season tells the full story of his 2009 performance. My problem with using FIP to predict next season’s performance in this particualr instance is that I think there’s a very good chance we’ll see a different (better) pitcher next Spring. I mean, if Cahill suddenly came into camp next season as a lefty with a 94 MPH fastball all the data we have from this season would be worthless.
Obviously, that scenario ain’t going to happen but hopefully it illustrates my point. All I want to do is wait until ST to determine where Cahill will play to open 2010. He is young enough and talented enough that we could see a sudden spike in his performance level next year.
Or maybe not.
As for your idea of actually finding a way to define a quality start, well, I won’t pretend to know if the run values are the right ones to use but I agree you’re looking at the right variables.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand meshing 'I don’t think his FIP or tRA from this season tells the full story of his 2009 performance.' and 'I'm not trying to predict run prevention in 2010'
The FIP and tRA families don’t predict pitcher performance so much as they try to isolate pitcher performance from team performance, thus establishing a proxy for a pitcher’s talent level. If we can get an approximate fix on that talent level, we are in a much better position to predict next year’s performance. They are not predictive statistics (there is probably no such thing), they are measures of what the pitcher did. Insofar as they do not tell the whole story, tRA tells the story of what a pitcher actually did than any other statistic publicly available.
by Graham on Oct 1, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand what FIP and tRA (well, mainly FIP) are designed to do
I’m not the guy saying 2009 FIP correlates really really well with 2010 performance. That’s Paul… and I admit I might not be quoting him verbatim so my apologies to you PT if I’m putting different words in your mouth but I know I caught the essence of your position.
I’m not saying the metrics are inaccurate. In fact, I’m pretty damn sure I made it clear that I believe FIP to be an accurate representation of Cahill’s 2009 statistical performance. And if I wasn’t clear before then I bloody well be now! What I question is whether or not FIP is necessarily the best way to describe a pitcher’s performance.
Pardon the hypothetical example, let’s assume a SP goes out and pitches 3 brilliant games (by any and every measure, he done good) and in his 4th game he gets ruthlessly shelled. His statistical line over those 4 games ends up with an ERA at 4 and a FIP of 4.33. You could look at his statistical line and conclude that the pitcher was basically a league average arm and he’d even been a little lucky.
And I guarantee you that when you watched those first 3 games “average” and “lucky” weren’t the words you used to describe his performance. But the statistical line is true and accurate.
You pointed it out to me below, it is our interpretation of the data that can be fallible. I am not arguing that Cahill’s 5.32 FIP is wrong or inaccurate. I’m arguing that people might be interpreting the data wrong.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This thread's just about reached it's end
Thanks for stopping by and sharing a few rounds.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, I don't think anyone would argue that the A's should make up their minds about Cahill before next spring training
More information is not always better, but it’s better 95% of the time and it’s safe to say that’s the case here.
What we’re saying is that the A’s should plan their offseason on the assumption that Cahill will not be an MLB-quality pitcher next spring, because he is not such a pitcher right now. We have a variety of things to tell us that— not just tRA by any means.
I’d encourage anyone here to read Baseball America’s summation of what kind of arsenal is typically required to achieve a certain slot in a rotation, be a closer, etc. To be a #1 starter I think it’s something like one plus-plus pitch, one plus pitch, one average pitch and plus command.
Cahill, right now, is working off of one above-average pitch (his changeup), a minus fastball, and breaking balls that could best be described as “primitive.” His arsenal is that of a sixth starter/long reliever. And meanwhile, we have a variety of statistical summations of his season like tRA telling us that he performed like… well, like a long reliever.
It’s not like long relievers can’t have decent seasons (Saarloos 2005, DiNardo 2007). The thing is, 1. those aren’t sustainable, and 2. I think everyone here would really like it if Cahill ultimately became something more than a long reliever. To do that he is going to have to improve the quality of his offerings.
It’s possible he could do that at the MLB level, but in doing so it is likely to a. waste his service time to the point where he’s not useful to the team by the time he figures it out, and b. hurt the Oakland A’s team’s chances of winning his starts in the meantime.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 1, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And let's look at BA's summation of the arsenal of a #4-5 SP
Command of two major league pitches
Average velocity
Consistent breaking ball
Decent change-up
Let’s consider where Cahill stands compared to this list.
I’d say Cahill has command of two big league pitches (fastball, change-up) although his control needs polish.
Average velocity is 90.3 MPH for a 2-seam fastball and 91.9 MPH for a 4-seam fastball. (Courtesy o’ Fangraphs.) When you look at Cahill’s velocity charts over the 2nd half of the year, his average velocity for both pitches was at least equal too if not a little higher than league average.
Consistent breaking ball. I don’t think they meant consistently bad.
Decent change-up. Per PT’s own words: the change is above average.
So no, Trevor Cahill does not match the profile of a #1 SP. But he sure seems close to meeting the profile of a #4-5 SP.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if he meets or exceeds the profile...
…of a back-of-the-rotation-guy, it’s only natural, logical, and rational that he needs to be sent down. Yeah, I get that!
[/sarcasm]
by LowcountryJoe on Oct 2, 2009 2:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say he does not have command of his fastball;
that he certainly lacks a consistent breaking ball. So in two out of four categories he’s worse than your typical fringe starter, and in one he’s better.
The above (thanks for posting it, BTW) is basically a description of a guy who will put up a 5 ERA or so, that being roughly the #4-5 range. Cahill is likely to be slightly worse than that until and unless he improves his arsenal.
Unless half the arms on the staff fall off, I think the A’s can easily match or better this level of performance with five players. And if they can’t, then there is almost no possible way that you’re looking at a contending team (unless both Gio Gonzalez and Brett Anderson turn into ace starters overnight— I suppose stranger things have happened, but I’m not holding my breath)— so the kind of short-term tradeoffs involved in rushing a prospect to fill a hole on a roster just aren’t applicable at all.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 2, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
apparently you think the answer to that is "so we can find out how good the starting pitcher is"....
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 30, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite
I’m just amused by the idea that we measure batters by a formula that assigns them a plus or minus run value, we measure defenders the same way and now pitchers should only be judged by the number of runs they could have given up and somewhere along the line the actual number of runs scored in the game have fallen by the wayside.
It is the actuals runs scored that determines wins and losses. It is wins and losses that determine who advances to the playoffs and more importantly, how happy you the fan are at the end of the day/season/year!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't need a stat to tell me how happy I am at the end of the day/season/year
I already know that.
What I’m looking for is a stat to tell me how happy I am likely to be at the end of NEXT day/season/year.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 1, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want to know how happy you'll be a year from now?
Try patience.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"You want me to show you that this building I'm desiging won't fall down in a year?"
“Try patience.”
Snark aside, Paul is trying how to better understand how baseball teams make roster building decisions. That’s not really something to mock him for.
by Graham on Oct 1, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not mocking the guy
I try to understand the same thing and I love to play the "If I was in charge game. Why? Because I think Billy Beane has a better job than I do and I know he makes more money. So my ego and greed would never allow me to mock someone with the same ideas.
I’m actually advocating patience in his search for that magic stat. As I see it (and I admit to often falling back to the KISS schooling I acquired on the way) a team needs to know what it has and what it’s options are to try and approve. Setting aside the on going discussion over what the A’s already have on hand, we don’t know what the A’s 2010 budget is, we don’t know what the entire free agent market looks like, we don’t know what kind of talent will be shopped on the trade market, we don’t know a lot of things. All those items are variables in the equation that PT is trying to solve and until they’re identified the question can’t be answered.
So I’m truly suggesting patience at this juncture.
And after all those variables get identified, we’ve still got to wait until the end of the 2010 season to see how it all played out.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The objective is limiting runs, so let's keep it simple
Besides, there are more than a hanful of 200-game winners in baseball that do not have career stats that match the requirements you posted.
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 30, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
I know how to keep it simple— let’s use tRA. That’s very simple— one number. Easy as pie. Correlates well with next year’s ERA. Etc etc.
I don’t really give a crap about 200-game winners, since most of them pitched in eras which were decidedly different from the modern day.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the objective limiting runs or is it something else?
Looking at how often a SP limits runs over a specified number of inning is useful. If you’re interested in differentiating quality even more, there’s always the GAME SCORE stat. From there, one can fairly quickly find the mean and median of that GAME SCORE stat.
by LowcountryJoe on Sep 30, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The objective is limiting runs, yes
The way pitchers do that is by striking out lots of hitters, not walking many, and having most of the balls in play that they give up be on the ground.
So we could use a statistic that measures how well pitchers do that, or we could use one which is worse at doing so because it looks through a less powerful lens. “Runs allowed this season” (or worse yet, “earned” runs allowed) is a worse proxy for pitching ability (that is, the ability to limit runs) than tRA is. That’s just a statistically proven fact.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I should add that quality starts, however defined, is even worse than runs allowed.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We wont be seeing eye-to-eye on this
I believe that the best way to measure a starting pitcher’s yearly performance is to try an figure out how often (the frequency) at which that pitcher, when starting, kept your team in a decent or better position to win the game. I think the QS is the easiest way to do this because the stat is available AND does measure that ‘decent or better’ position fairly well. People have argued the three earned runs in six innings is not very good; but that’s only the cut off point and is decent, is it not? Wouldn’t you take that every single time out of the 2-5 spots in the rotation?
Now, to introduce walks, Ks, WHIP, more innings or outs, it might be just as easy to go with the Game Score. In fact, with a list of Game Scores, it wouldn’t take much time to find an SP’s mean and median Game Scores to show the contribution to winning games, on average or typically, throughout the season. i did something similar here but the formatting sucks; still pretty useful, though, I think.
by LowcountryJoe on Oct 2, 2009 3:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If tRA was infallible, then sure
However, it’s not. We know there are outliers and performances that go completely against any projection tRA might offer. It shouldn’t be frightening to ask why that is and if its possible to identify future singular individuals.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, because maybe this time it will get through. I really have no objection to the idea that Cahill might need to start next season in AAA, if the A’s feel that is the best place for him to improve. What I object to is people using 1 number to declare that Trevor Cahill was the worst SP in baseball and because of that he deserves a demotion to AAA.
And to then use small sample sizes to claim that other pitchers on the A’s roster are better than the guy!
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ERA is infallible. So is FIP. So are all of the numbers one might look at.
tRA is also infallible. It does exactly what it’s supposed to do. It doesn’t offer predictions or projections – it’s a number, a point in a data set. That’s all.
Interpretation of that data is where we are not infallible. Otherwise the implication is that tRA isn’t doing the exact same thing to everyone, which would be a little odd.
Perhaps I am taking this too personally…
by Graham on Oct 1, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps you are
Interpretation of that data is where we are not infallible.
But that is a more accurate statement than the one I used.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not saying you are wrong
But here is an interesting article on the limitations of FIP.
by jeffro on Sep 30, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's important to remember that regression has both a skill component and a luck component
The problem with applying that to Cahill is that he has very little in the way of track record at high levels, so we don’t have a very good handle on what his established skill level actually is. (Compare: Edwin Jackson, who will probably walk more hitters next season.)
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glaus is coming off a shoulder injury but should be ready to go next Spring and at 33 might be looking for a 1 year deal to re-establish himself before going for 1 last big payday. He’s got enough glove to handle 3rd base should Chavez be unable to make it onto the field and his bat would play well at 1st base in the unlikely scenario that Chavez is healthy.
Yes pls.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
by Daniel777 on Sep 30, 2009 12:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Players I am interested in next year
are Webb, Glaus and perhaps one of the DH’s available on the market (though Glaus might count as that as well).
Thome, Dye, Delgado, Abreu, etc…
One of those guys might give some help to the lineup, but I’d like more effort into finding which one still has stuff left in the tank instead of signing Giambi over Abreu again.
Don't believe in yourself.
Believe in Me who believes in You.
by Zonis on Sep 30, 2009 1:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the last thing we need is a DH
That’s Cust’s highest and best use.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 30, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Webb, Glaus, Delgado & Abreu
would be wow like whoa additions
CF Davis
DH Abreu
1B Delgado
3B Glaus
RF Sweeney
LF Hairston
C Suzuki
2B Ellis
SS Pennington
SP: Anderson-Braden-Webb-Cahill-Gio
by PL78 on Sep 30, 2009 1:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I see only Glaus as a realistic target out of those 4
After the year he had with Angels, Abreu is moving from bargain to not-bargain class, lot like Frank Thomas after 2006.
If Webb doesn’t work something out with Arizona, he will be getting incentive-based offers from 29 other teams, I can’t see him choosing A’s frankly.
Delgado makes sense only as a DH, after Giambi fiasco I don’t want to see another banged-up, no-glove first baseman born during Nixon administration blocking our young guys there. If Cust stays, there’s no place for Delgado in my mind, and chances our that he will stay after a strong(er) second half.
by Manstein on Sep 30, 2009 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Delgado and Glaus at the infield corners would be a disaster defensively.
"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West
by Blicks on Sep 30, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'll bet you a silver penny that Aaron Cunningham, if given enough PT, outplays Abreu next year for 1/15th of the money.
(that’s outplays, not outhits.)
by Elston Gunn on Sep 30, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto for Delgado, though that's less relevant,
and what the hell, throw in Glaus too, though I wouldn’t mind us signing him.
Unless it’s a long term answer on the left side of the infield or a good starting pitcher, I really think we should sit out this free-agent off season. My basic free agent strategy is low-level and high-level deals, and avoid like the plague the mediocre guys because you probably have someone nearly as good (and with a team with minor league depth like the A’s, probably someone just as good) that costs 1/10th as much.
by Elston Gunn on Sep 30, 2009 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw Glaus
as a 1B/DH and emergency/back up/temporary 3B.
Delgado (unless we get him for the absolute minimum and we aren’t relying on him as a crucial cog) = DO NOT WANT.
Of the DH-y options Glaus gives us the most/best defensive flexibility.
So under the Daniel777 plan, Cust out – Glaus in. :-)
P.S… Tejada and Glaus are duking it out for the last Type A – first Type B spot.
Tejada: 67.4285714285 = A
Glaus: 67.032967032967 = B
Go Miggy, secure your A spot.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
by Daniel777 on Sep 30, 2009 3:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why would you sign Glaus as a 1B/DH?
1B/DH is not a need on this team.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Sep 30, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really, but power is.
And I have no idea whether Glaus will be in any shape to play 3B.
He played 3B on Sept 29 for a couple of innings, if that helps.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
by Daniel777 on Sep 30, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Resign Adam Kennedy on the Cheap
So we have an option at 3b until Wallace is ready. We can eat the poor D with the rest of our defense being stellar.
Offer Duke arbitration if there’s a chance of him playing next season. Give Cust another year, see if he figures it out/rebuilds some value. He is still one of our top two or three hitters, even in a down year. Don’t sign anyone else. As we’ve seen this summer, it helps to figure out what you have in your own organization before paying lots of money to older players.
Basically, free agent signings won’t help us compete for the playoffs next year, so why sign them? I’d rather use the money on the draft to sign over-slot players (again).
Our rotation will suck (Braden, Anderson, Cahill, Gio, X) but we are rebuilding, and can go dumpster diving after Spring Training.
by librariansunite on Sep 30, 2009 7:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How
Quickly poor Outman is forgotten. Then there’s Mazzaro. I don’t think our rotation is going to suck. It may be young and inexperienced, but not as young and as inexperienced as it was this year. I wouldn’t mind adding a starting pitcher, but I don’t think it’s the holy grail for the 10 season.
What I find intriguing is contemplating the Angels position. Should they lose all three of Lackey, Vlad, and Figgins, they are going to be very touchable next year. As in a big ole bitch slap upside the back of the head. As much as I’m loathe to be bitten by optimism before the snow even falls, I think our primary antagonist may be bleeding out before our very eyes. I for one am not opposed to the idea of the A’s thinking about the playoffs in ten by dent of the Angels falling to the ground and having the boots put to them by the rest of the west.
Dreaming like this makes life worth living.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Sep 30, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outman
won’t be back until July under the normal recovery timeline. I doubt they’ll throw him right back into the rotation. Plus, he’ll be coming back from surgery and only succeeded in a small smaple size. Mazzaro was unprepared for the bigs this year, we’ll see how he fares next year. Overall, I wasn’t commenting that it was a concern, just that I believe the group as a whole will be below average.
I think we’ve underestimated the Angels before…
by librariansunite on Sep 30, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True enough concerning the Angels...
But this time there may actually be blood in the water. I certainly hope so. The A’s have options concerning pitching, so I’m not sold on the idea that we need to rush out and sign a big free agent.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Sep 30, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't send Mazzaro down
it will bruise his psyche
by Future Ed on Sep 30, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The crazy thing about the Angels is...
They can feasibly IMPROVE by letting Lackey, Figgins and Vlad walk.
Even if they dont sign anyone, they have a solid rotation: Kazmir-Weaver-Saunders-Santana is a pretty good 4. Any SP FA signing they get is gravy.
There’s so many guys who can and will outperform Vlad next year, Vlad’s knees are basically gone at this point, Thome, Delgado etc will give them better than a 105 OPS+ next year.
Figgins will be tough to replace at 3B, but I dunno, I go back and forth on him. He’s not a good base stealer (only 25 netSB this year), he’s average on D and will require a multi-year deal starting at his age 32 season. They could grab Miggy on a 1/$6 deal and probably not lose too much. We forget how great Morales, Hunter and Abreu are, we dont have anything close to those guys.
by PL78 on Sep 30, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Abreu is also a free agent
and Morales and Hunter should regress closer to their career hitting lines next season.
They do have Brandon Wood as an option at third, who could explode into a superstar player at any point (of course, he could also be a total washout).
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are nuts if you think letting Figgins and Lackey walk will improve the Angles
that is like 10 WAR. Even if Wood puts up 5 WAR that still only makes up for Figgins.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
though I wish they’d consider it
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kazmir replaces Lackey.
plus they get a TON of money freed up to spend on, i dunno, say Matt Holliday and whatever decent SP, and all of a sudden the WAR is better than before.
by PL78 on Sep 30, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lackey>>>Kazmir
and no they don’t have a ton of money they have three starting players and a shitty bullpen even before Oliver leaves and a #1 starter that are free agents and only $25m to spend and even less next year.
Try having a clue what you are talking about.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh i have a clue
and cotts agrees with that clue that they only have $59MM committed to 2010 after $117MM this year, 117-59= $58MM=a ton of money.
its really rad how many “how DARE you argue ME” types there are on here…
by PL78 on Sep 30, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in before..
you bring up arby players as well.
i forgot that, so yeah they “only” have about $35MM to spend on players next year, Matt Holliday and Brandon WEbb could easily be two of those players.
by PL78 on Sep 30, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They have a projected $88.135m committed with arbitration
Considering the dismal state of the economy, it is likely that the Angels payroll will be down to $110m next year. That would provide just slightly less than $30m before the Kazmir acquisition. The Angles would be lacking two starting pitchers, a starting right fielder, a starting designated hitter, back up first and third baseman, a starting third baseman, a left handed reliever, and a setup man. Kazmir’s $8m represents a little more than a fourth of that sum, leaving only about $22m remaining to fill all of those positions. That makes it nearly impossible to see a return for Chone Figgins, who will likely command $7.5-$10m a season for at least three years, when Brandon Wood is a viable replacement at the hot corner. Similarly John Lackey will receive around $15-17m a year for at least 4 years and likely more, which makes his return unlikely as well since the rest of those needs would have to be filled at $5m-$7m total. There are also back of the rotation candidates within the system, Dustin Mosely, Shane Loux, and others, who despite not being very good are cheap replacements, though the Angels are clearly lacking depth.Right field and DH do not have suitable internal replacement. Gary Mathews Jr is a below replacement rate player and Reggie Wiltis is not a major league starter. While there a plenty of DH bats available, which should depress their prices. Further, Juan Rivera has had plenty of experience in RF, which puts left fielders in play as free agents.
This suggests that getting one big bat for the outfield and letting DH be a position that players rotate through to provide rest and better catcher defense with Napoli getting lots of DH at bats with Mathis behind the plate. If the Angles sign a bat for $16m+ plus they can probably only afford at most a good bullpen arm (such as resigning Darren Oliver) and a back up 1b/3b veteran.
2011 is an even bigger problem if they have $16-$20m committed to an OF bat. The trade of Sean Rodriguez will require them to stick with Howie Kendrick through arbitration, and they will need a back up MI when Macir Izturis leaves after 2010. Closer also becomes a problem as Brian Fuentes is in an $11m option year that if exercised leaves no budget room for the rest of the bullpen which will need serious help with setup men, starting DH, negotiate extensions with arbitration eligible players, or to replace under performing or injured players.
Essentially the Kazmir trade throughly compromises their payroll flexibility, doing so for someone that is not likely to bring surpluss value beyond his contract.
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would someone pay actual money to a guy who we know is bad at defense and is probably bad at offense too?
I mean, I’m sure Terry Tiffee or Mike Hessman are available essentially for free if you want that.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Continuity,
chemistry, leadership, “grittiness?”
Really, though, lack of better options, and I wouldn’t pay him a penny more than $1.5 million, which is unrealistic b/c someone will give him more.
by librariansunite on Sep 30, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Hessman is reportedly very gritty and an excellent leader
I’m not kidding. I really mean that. He is reportedly a stand-up guy.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a feeling that Adam Kennedy v.2010
is going to be Jack Hannahan without the plus defense.
He’ll be like the wholesome girl you had a crush on in 9th grade—and kissed on the cheek the last day of school—that shows up the first day of sophomore year amid swirling rumors of her slutty exploits that summer (and high probability that she contracted something from Dirty Danny, the campus man-whore.)
Nevermind, no thanks. It was fun while it lasted.
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons
by dtownmbrown on Sep 30, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I knew that girl....
And what’s more, I wanted her even more. Why? Because she had experience. And you were almost certain of the outcome. She had the sample size to prove it.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Sep 30, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Despite the near certainty of "scoring"
I couldn’t get passed the similar certainty of “the clap” waiting for me in the dugout. And I’m not talking about a curtain call. And the whole reason I liked her in the first place was the school girl innocence (which brings this full-circle: the A’s can’t claim Kennedy off waivers from themselves, so he’ll never be as sexy as he was this year while being paid league minimum.)
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons
by dtownmbrown on Sep 30, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that, folks, is my case for not re-signing Adam Kennedy:
STD’s.
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons
by dtownmbrown on Sep 30, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Has he dated Derek Jeter?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't realize
God’s Puppy was an STD, but now that I think about it, it kind of sounds like one.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
by DMOAS on Sep 30, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so, but I'm sure a fun little game of
six degrees of separation would yield some sort of link.
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons
by dtownmbrown on Sep 30, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Finally, some stats I can sink my teeth into
I really like your analysis, grover, because it combines both useful stats with qualitative considerations. Not to prick your souffle or anything, but I think Nolan Ryan’s been saying to his pitchers this whole year that a QS isn’t really 6IP/<3ER, but more like 7IP/3ER or 7IP/2ER.
From what I’ve seen of Cahill, he’s got stuff to work on that’s best done in the offseason and at the ML level. He can work on mechanics all he wants at the AAA level, but then he’ll come up and if he has the same problems, get sent down again and end up in the roller coaster. I’d rather he just get it done in the bigs. Yeah, he was brutal for like 10 starts there, but I agree that even though his FIP was dragged down, it’s not representative of his projection as an MLB starter. I think he can really be a James Shields (2008 version)
Rec’d!
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2009 8:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I forgot to add, above, that 3 of Cahill's 4 legitimately good starts came by early June
This narrative about steady improvement is, bluntly, utter bullshit.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
his results are a mixed bag
isn’t that why we’re all trying to dissect whether he’s gonna be good or not? No, there’s not steady improvement on a start by start basis, but I’m not sure that’s a fair way to judge a pitcher.
We just had this whole argument about streaks in a prior thread, too, and now you bring this up? If he did pitch legitimately better in those 3, how do you explain his performances from then until now?
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Easy
Luck. It’s the same explanation I have for streaks— the guy got lucky for a week. There are hundreds of players in major league baseball. Some of them will get lucky. It’s a mathematical inevitability.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure
but he could also have been be unlucky and bad thereafter those 3. We just don’t have a good sample size, then, to say all that much that’s not oozing out of our asses.
Does anyone do Monte Carlo/bootstrapping analyses in sabremetrics? That could really help figure out the probability of luckiness.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you have no idea
there are a multitude of variables that affect performance.
The logic that some will get lucky therefore luck is the explanation for streaks fails.
by JetSam on Sep 30, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
If there was some other explanation, there would be more streaks. You’d have a bunch that were due to luck and a bunch that weren’t.
In fact, the number of streaks is what you’d expect from a basic probability distribution. There’s nothing “extra” to explain.
Also, in this case, the variables affecting performance are pointing in the direction of Cahill sucking. He’s not striking out many hitters and he’s walking a lot, while displaying only moderate ground-ball tendencies.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree actually
I think there are a tonne of reasons that we see streaks, from nagging injuries, getting healthy, luck, getting enough sleep, etc etc etc.
But! They are distributed just like they would be if it were all random*. So we don’t lose any information by attributing streaks to ‘luck’, but it’s more of a semantics dustbin rather than a real thing.
*Possibly because all of the reasons for streaks end up being distributed randomly.
by Graham on Oct 1, 2009 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you do about backup SS
All these threads about who to sign and no one seems to actually look at a 25 man roster position by position.
We need a temporary 3B and we need a backup or platoon SS behind Pennington. Right now no one has an answer to what would happen if Cliff got injured or sucked. Petit is not an answer. Cardenas might be but he likely isn’t ready and its debatable if he can even play SS. The A’s would be foolish to use 2 roster spots to fill the 3B/SS void. And we need another aging corner IF/DH like we need a hole in the head.
Beltre, Glaus and their ilk are poor options. We don’t need big name guys blocking Wallace anyways… and yes I believe the A’s are committed to playing him at 3B.
Figgins is old and is slowing down… Look at his success rate on steals… he will be overpaid and the A’s should avoid him at all costs.
Kennedy will probably get offered a multi-year deal so he is out and he can’t play SS anyways.
DeRosa is a good player and is more versatile but he will probably cost too much and his age and injuries are a reason for concern. He also can’t play SS.
I really think its down to Iwamura or Hairston Jr. unless a significant trade happens, changing the complextion of the roster and depth chart.
by DrDoom on Sep 30, 2009 8:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
why is Petit not an answer?
Temporary and/or platoon for a year — he seems to fit the bill. I don’t think that would be the worst thing in the world to have him play like that.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
by cuppingmaster on Sep 30, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tejada could be useful,
assuming he’d be willing to play around the infield. I really have no idea what kind of offers he’s gonna get – there’s a lot working for him and a lot working against him.
Agreed on Petit. His bat would be Mendoza-esque by any metric.
"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs
by Aufheben on Sep 30, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miggy works
If you can get him for one year…. with the A’s carrying 12 and occasionally 13 pitchers, you’ve got to have a temporary 3B who can play SS or you’re stuck with someone like Petit. Having both Kennedy and Chavez screws up the roster, that’s why having Chavez around and not being able to count on him is such a negative.
by vk on Sep 30, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't this what the 60 day DL
is for? I’m assuming Miggy will be the starting third baseman until Chavez actually plays two consecutive weeks. If he does, then we have Miggy getting time at third and SS while Kennedy assumes Nomar’s role, but is actually capable of taking the field. He can split time at second and third. Miggy provides flexibility along with Kennedy until such time as Chavez goes on life support.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Sep 30, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JJ Hardy has come up in the past
I’m not sure where I stand re: the idea to bring him in, but he could definitely cover 3B/SS with one roster spot.
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons
by dtownmbrown on Sep 30, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bring back Marco Scutaro!!
Venezuelan man-candy!
by cityplANner on Sep 30, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to challenge one of your early assumptions and suggest that E-Gon should be offered arbitration
He’s been a lot better than replacement level this year (in a SS) and would be a good guy to have around next year.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 30, 2009 9:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'd be OK with that
Lenny D only got about 800K when the A’s offered him a few years ago, and E-Gon is probably in a worse position (from an arbitration standpoint) than DiNardo was.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, he looks 40 but I was surprised to find he's only 26
He’s shown promise in the past
(116/38 K/BB ratio in AAA in 05, 107/27 in 06—cherry-picking be damned)
so I think on the cheap, he’s a low-risk option.
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." -- Peter Gibbons
by dtownmbrown on Sep 30, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heck, in MVP 2005 he was a major prospect
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 30, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He reminds me a crapton of Trevor Cahill.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
by travdog6 on Sep 30, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tell me more of your plan
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Sep 30, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
I think if we’re planning to make a run at things I want serious talks with Lackey and Beltre. I would also not hate a Miggy run if it came down to it.
If not, we should just give the guys we have the playing time they haven’t been getting.
Either way, I think having EGon around is a positive.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Sep 30, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I'm not following this
How does the addition of Lackey, Beltre, Miggy AND EGon help the A’s? One of those guys seems unlike the others.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me re-phrase my question
Why not Dana Eveland for half the price and probably similar performance?
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because we probably should have both.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Oct 1, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So the old stockpile arms and hope one works philosophy?
Okey dokey.
I thought you were picking EGon for a specific reason other than he’s already in the organization.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 1, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My plan: Teh winz are teh awesome
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Sep 30, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was for Glaus before I was against him,
but now I’m for him again, simply because most of the FA options seem like a gamble at best. The idea of a 3B with a year long injury to his throwing arm isn’t particularly appealing, but his bat would play better at 1st/DH than any of the other options, which could be important if Wallace makes it up. I also think he’s more likely to agree to a short term deal than the other candidates. Beltre needs to wear a cup. Gonads are like nature’s steroids.
"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs
by Aufheben on Sep 30, 2009 9:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
said it before say it again
cups are a disincentive to catch the ball.
by Future Ed on Sep 30, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One of the alleged hqss was
this game which featured the luckiest inning of all time.
1. Line drive single
Caught stealing
2. BB
3. Line drive where Sweeney made a great diving catch.
4. Double to the wall in LF, runner on first out at home.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Sep 30, 2009 12:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















