SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Starting pitching depth entering season
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 22, 2015 7:49:28 GMT -5
Agreed, therefore, since JBJ had a bad first year, Mookie is also likely to.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 22, 2015 8:17:30 GMT -5
Personally, I see Rodriguez as the only guy who may be better than a #3. I've seen Owens a half dozen times live and still believe MLB hitters will adjust to his deception, and that more than him gaining better control will keep him a 4/5. Johnson looks like a 5 or bullpen arm based ton the fact that all his pitches grade out as average at best. I love to dream on Barnes getting enough command of that third pitch to be a #3 starter but right now he's looking more and more like an elite pen arm. Wright will have his days but he is likely a 5 as well. Regardless of optimum projection, there isn't a single guy there who looks to be better than a 5 in his rookie year except Rodriguez who, if he pitches like second half Rodriguez, may pitch like a 4 in his rookie year. Whomever they lose next year (or this year) they'll be replacing them with a 5 unless they buy a blue chip or trade blue chips for one. And beyond this class, options or no, there's maybe one more 5 in waiting in until you get to low A or below. So, yeah, there's some quantity but the quality is almost all back of the rotation/substandard. This is a fragile MLB rotation that in 4/5ths of their cases vastly over-perform their last year's numbers to be competitive. The only thing more troubling than that is if, any of them go down, the replacements, at least in the short term, look worse. (Yes, that's worse than Joe Kelly, Justin Masterson and Wade Miley). You might find this interesting. I was wondering when someone would put something like this together and here it is. This takes every at bat into account when calculating a fielding independent pitching statistic for a pitcher. It's completely contextualized in other words. We're talking about some serious data mining here. There are links to this "cFIP" calculation in the article for all pitchers, 2011 through 2013. The best number for last year's Sox, after Uehara and Tazawa, is... for Steven Wright! Eric where are you??? That was an interesting piece, thanks Norm. I've always been a big believer in the importance of context, and appreciate the various ways people have been trying to account for it in various ways through advanced statistical methods, especially in pitching. The cFIP will be interesting to track. Once you separate out the relievers from the starters on that spreadsheet it gets even more interesting. I am intrigued to look back at the results over the last, say, 10 years and see what if any predictive value it has.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 22, 2015 8:56:17 GMT -5
Personally, I see Rodriguez as the only guy who may be better than a #3. I've seen Owens a half dozen times live and still believe MLB hitters will adjust to his deception, and that more than him gaining better control will keep him a 4/5. Johnson looks like a 5 or bullpen arm based ton the fact that all his pitches grade out as average at best. I love to dream on Barnes getting enough command of that third pitch to be a #3 starter but right now he's looking more and more like an elite pen arm. Wright will have his days but he is likely a 5 as well. I mean, I'm not going to argue your overall opinions - not because they are worthless, just because they are pure opinion ... could be right, could be wrong. It's less optimistic than the consensus of professionals, but who knows? But why do you say that about Owens's "deception"? Some guys are deceptive because they have gimmicks in their delivery, but some guys are deceptive just because the way they pitch makes it hard to see the ball until later in the delivery than other guys. This isn't something you can "figure out"; it's just a physical reality. It's my impression that this is what people are talking about with Owens. It's certainly what I see when I see his delivery.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 5, 2015 13:47:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 5, 2015 16:01:45 GMT -5
Interesting. Thanks for the link. A nice piece of logic from probability theory is useful, here. To figure out the prob that at least one starter will end up on DL, figure out the probability that none will, and subtract from 1. That probability is 1-(60/100)5 = 1-(3/5)5 = 1-.078 = .92
So, for a staff whose pitchers met those conditions the previous year - at least 20 starts and 120 innings - there's a better than 90% chance one or more will go on the DL before the year's out.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Apr 5, 2015 16:35:46 GMT -5
All three of Rick Porcello, Wade Miley, and Justin Masterson fit that criteria, yet they've been 3 of the most durable pitchers in recent years. Average # of Games Started & Innings Pitched - Rick Porcello: 30GS, 178.6IP (2009-2014)
- Wade Miley: 31.6GS, 199.2IP (2012-2014)
- Justin Masterson: 30GS, 184.6IP (2010-2014) -- numbers deflated by DL-ridden 2014 season
Of course we have Buchholz & Kelly, both of which frequent the DL, but overall I like the durability of this staff. Ben knew what he was doing this offseason. Bring in a dynamic offense to go with pitchers who will consistently go 6+ IP throughout the season.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 5, 2015 19:53:27 GMT -5
Pitchers who didn't throw a lot of innings the prior season are less likely to be good enough to throw the next session and be added to the dl.
Survivorship bias.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 5, 2015 22:33:46 GMT -5
Pitchers who didn't throw a lot of innings the prior season are less likely to be good enough to throw the next session and be added to the dl. Survivorship bias. Not quite. The question is simply put. If a pitcher meets those criteria, what's their probability of making it through the next season without a DL stint. That's all. If you think it would be a good idea to have such pitchers on your staff, then it's a viable question. I guess you could always look for guys who only pitched 50 or less if their probability is better. That might be a double edged sword. There's a reason, after all, why the first group are survivors.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Apr 6, 2015 7:05:20 GMT -5
Pitchers who didn't throw a lot of innings the prior season are less likely to be good enough to throw the next session and be added to the dl. Survivorship bias. Not quite. The question is simply put. If a pitcher meets those criteria, what's their probability of making it through the next season without a DL stint. That's all. If you think it would be a good idea to have such pitchers on your staff, then it's a viable question. I guess you could always look for guys who only pitched 50 or less if their probability is better. That might be a double edged sword. There's a reason, after all, why the first group are survivors. That is the point, though. In picking a group of pitchers to pitch in the ML, you pick pitchers who are good at pitching in the MLs first. When you do, and they demonstrate the ability to do so over a year, all the above calculation is doing is telling us that they also have a chance of getting hurt and landing on the major league disabled list. What it does not do is tell us to manage pitcher loads, or watch out for innings increases, or anything like that. Instead, what it tells us is "pitchers who can pitch in the major leagues get hurt." So, yes, among the group of pitchers who have a demonstrated ability to pitch in the major leagues, some large proportion will get hurt. Among those pitchers who do not demonstrate an ability to pitch a lot of innings in the major leagues.... who knows what will happen, but it won't take place on a major league disabled list.
|
|
|