I had to take a 15 minute break and down a beer after writing that headline. Ugh. Reports came out last night that Joel Pineiro has signed a two-year, $16 million deal with the Angels. I loved Joel Pineiro when he came up with Seattle. Who didn't? He was awesome. Then he had to go and just suck so bad in 2006. I mean, he was downright awful. He was so bad that we had drinking games based on how many swinging strikes he would get in a start and even my tiny girlfriend didn't get drunk. He was so bad that he actually inspired me to delve into pitching statistics on a pitch by pitch basis, to start seriously looking at swinging strike percentage, just to see how bad he was.
I was happy when he was gone ("surely, nobody could ever be that bad again," I saids to myself...) and happy when he was still useless with Boston and later in the National League. Served him right for making me watch him face 652 batters in 2006 and manage to strike out just 67. Then something, maybe Dave Duncan, happened and he had to go be all good last season based on a complete change in his method of attack. Fueled by Joel Pineiro's insane jump to being a ground ball pitcher, I am forced to look back on the last couple years anew and see if I can figure out what he might bring in 2010.
First of all, he wasn't as bad as I remember. Yeah, the strikeouts and walks were awful in 2006, but Pineiro actually generated a swinging strike 6.9% of the time, which is below average, but not as horrendous as my memory wanted to assume. The strikeout rate of 10% was indeed atrocious though, so there is that. His other core numbers were actually better than I recall as well; he was a moderate groundballer even back then and he threw an average amount of strikes. The problems with Pineiro mostly boiled down to an increasing penchant for allowing line drives and some bad luck on hits allowed.
Those traits continued until this past season, when Pineiro decided to stop walking people, not allow home runs and further ramp up the ground balls, even dropping his line drive rate below league average for the first time since he was last good year, in 2004. Those are all good things.
Now the bad things. Pineiro's pitch results didn't change much, he didn't throw more strikes and he actually got, by far, the lowest percentage of swings and misses of his career. The home runs allowed was way too low; just under 4% of all balls in the air left the yard. Even if he kept up the 60% ground ball rate, Pineiro would be due for some home run regression.
What about those ground balls? What caused the change and can it be expected to continue? 2009 Joel Pineiro fell in love with his (possibly) new sinker, throwing it over 70% of the time, a notable rise over prior seasons. If you think of a compass rose with north pointing toward the sky and south toward the ground then 2008 Pineiro's average fastball broke about 5.3 inches and at an angle roughly 20 degrees west of due south. In 2009, it broke an average of 6.7 inches and now moved more in to same-handed hitters, 27 degrees west of due south.
Against right-handed hitters in 2009, Pineiro posted a 5.8 K/BB ratio against a more normal 2.7 ratio to lefty hitters when prior to '09 he had no significant difference in the two rates. I am loathe to grant pitchers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to new pitches - see my upcoming reaction to several Spring Training fluff stories - but when they actually show up in the numbers, like Brandon League's splitter, I am more amiable to giving them credit going forward.
Still, you need to regress the walks upward, the home runs upward, the ground balls downward (since it's hard for anyone to maintain that high of a level) and it seems like you're eating away everything that made Joel Pineiro good in 2009. Moving back into the American League will hurt him even further. The good news, for Joel, is that he has a long way to fall on each of those categories. If he maintains a strong ground ball rate thanks to his sinker, the home runs should rise, but not enough to cripple him. The walks should increase, but again, probably not by enough to make him terrible.
Honestly, my best bet for Pineiro is 2010 would be a low-to-mid-4 FIP/tRA guy, something worth about 2.5 wins. Even though he will only be 31 for the upcoming season, because of his new found success and long track record of sucking in the past, I never would have wanted to grant him more than a two-year deal. Normally that would be a fruitless hope, but this depressed winter actually made that attainable, especially while several decent SP candidates are still out there looking for work. Taking the deal with Anaheim was probably smart for Pineiro as Doug Davis also signed yesterday and suitors for pitchers like Jarrod Washburn are drying up fast.
As far as value goes, this article was mostly written before the signing announcement and carried the angle of what I would have been happy with were the Mariners to pursue Pineiro. My conclusion was that a 2 year, $15 million contract, similar to Jason Marquis' deal, seemed about fair, balancing his upside with his downside and adding a touch of a penalty for sucking so much in 2005 and '06. His durability is better than other reclamation projects (Sheets, Bedard, Wang) and his upside, as we just saw last year, is not that far off from the more health-risky pitchers left on the market. All in all, I am not pleased that the Angels got him on such a reasonable deal. If he maintains his improvement, it will hurt doubly so. If he implodes again, it will be twice as sweet. Either way, with his addition, my projections now have the Angels ahead of us by a solid 1.5-2 wins.
The ball is back in your court, Jack.
0 recs | 108 comments
We'll just have to hope he turns back into Joel Pinata.
ARock - January 21, 2010
I, for one, welcome Pineiro back to the AL West
and on an opposing team! I eagerly await the free wins he will provide to the opposition.
Zonis - January 21, 2010
Does he awaken the competitive fire that lies dormant in the innermost recesses of your soul?
Bearskin Rugburn - January 21, 2010
Only Ichiro has this fire dormant there.
ARock - January 21, 2010
You, for one, are forgetting that Joel Pineiro was good last year
and even with moderate regression should continue to be a net asset for a division rival.
seattlebruin - January 21, 2010
I hope one of the authors writes a post about that so we can find out
tootthekazoo - January 21, 2010
Meh
I’m okay with this move. I don’t think Joel will be able to sustain his 2009 improvements but for 2 years/16 mill, he doesn’t have to in order to be a value. That being said, I don’t think he’ll be more than a 2-2.5 WAR pitcher next year. Anyone that relies on pitching to contact to such an extreme that Joel does is going to be vulnerable to wild swings in effectiveness. And any new pitch will get figured out eventually by hitters (at least to some extent).
What this does do is take away some of the money the Angels had to spend. I’d rather them give their money to Joel than to someone like Sheets. They’ve now lost the ability to use this money on a player with a higher upside.
Mekias - January 21, 2010
Here is my basic take on Pineiro's value going forward
Basic Marcel’s has him at around a 4.00 ERA going forward. If you include the fact that his 2009 numbers were, at least in part, due to a legitimate change in skills rather than just random variation, you should weigh his 2009 season higher than you otherwise would, knocking his ERA projection below four. Moving back to the AL, you should add something like .4 runs to that, making your projection about right.
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
ERA sucks
.Taylor - January 21, 2010
I think you just blew his mind
Bearskin Rugburn - January 21, 2010
Projecting ERA is perfectly valid.
Its like projecting RBIs. You can do it. Just don’t try to use ERA to explain talent levels.
Edgar for Pres - January 21, 2010
Projecting ERA is dumb.
Don’t use it for anything.
Matthew - January 21, 2010
ERA is just how many runs a guy gives up
I’m not actually saying he’ll have a whatever ERA, I’m saying that’s how many runs he projects to give up in a context neutral setting. IOW, if I had said, he projects for a 4.00 tRA or FIP or xFIP, it’s no different than saying he projects for a 4.00 ERA.
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
It's confusing though
Might as well just use tRA or FIP, etc.
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
Fair enough
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
It's quite different. Projecting his tRA is projecting his measurable ability to pitch.
Projecting how many runs he gives up is projecting luck, park, and defense.
abender20 - January 21, 2010
I think you're missing the point
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
No, I get that you were using a different interpretation of a term that most people understand to mean something other than how you used it.
abender20 - January 21, 2010
Yes
My mistake
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
To be fair,
FIP and tRA are both scaled so as to represent how many runs a pitcher will give up, so they both get at the same thing. ERA as a historical stat is no good (except over a very large sample). But ERA as the final output of a projection system isn’t that bad really.
I’m no expert in projection formulas, but as I understand them their output is context neutral. If you look at Pineiro’s projections for instance, the difference between his projected ERAs and FIPs from all listed systems (Marcel, CHONE, Bill James, Fans) is about 0.06. Is it really worth going all agro over that?
Bearskin Rugburn - January 21, 2010
I'm aware of the differences, and vivaelpujols apparently is too.
He used a term in a way that lead to confusion, and there’s no need to get worked up over it. He just shouldn’t have said ERA because that’s not what he really meant.
abender20 - January 21, 2010
No, I think you're missing how to properly evaluate pitchers.
Just because something exists doesn’t mean we should use it, especially when it’s pointless.
.Taylor - January 21, 2010
You should write an angry email to Tom Tango
Bearskin Rugburn - January 21, 2010
I think he meant ERA scaled to tRA or FIP rather than actual ERA
But yeah, should just use those designations if that’s what you’re using.
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
No. No. No.
ERA is how many earned runs a pitcher gets charged with based on what he, his defense, his park, his timing and his luck combine to give up.
Matthew - January 21, 2010
I understand that Matthew.
I’m just using ERA as a proxy for that, but I’m not actually projecting ERA. For most people, that makes more sense, but I guess LL is completely divorced from the idea of using ERA!
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
ERA has a specific meaning.
abender20 - January 21, 2010
Apparently it can mean other things too! No means yes! No means yes!
.Taylor - January 21, 2010
I realize that, and that's obviously been the cause of confusion here
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
But in the context of a projection the meaning has to change
Bearskin Rugburn - January 21, 2010
Not really
It’s no longer ERA when you isolate talent from the things that make ERA bad.
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
So here's a little experiment
AL 09 league ERA/9*league IP = 10006 runs
AL 09 total runs = 10793
I understand that everyone loves inertia at all, but calling ERA a runs projection is a farce.
Graham MacAree - January 22, 2010
Well yeah...ERA will always underestimate the runs produced
because it only tries to take out bad defense and never tries to put in good defense. It is pretty weird when you think about it.
Edgar for Pres - January 22, 2010
It's really weird
We don’t like rating defenders based on fielding percentage, but adding errors into our pitching stats is perfectly fine? The hell’s up with that?
Graham MacAree - January 22, 2010
I agree with you
Its too bad errors don’t explain all of defense. It would be a nice way but I guess its pretty obvious that its super crappy. You could kinda still make it work if you had a perfect scorekeeper who could call errors and “great plays” and then put them into ERA. Maybe some day when we attach GPS units to every player, we can rate each play they make and then rebuild ERA. (And regress HR rates)
Edgar for Pres - January 22, 2010
Or let's just give up on ERA and use RA
Graham MacAree - January 22, 2010
Yeah I'm totally fine with that
At least RA isn’t deceptive and doesn’t pretend to be anything more than it is.
Edgar for Pres - January 22, 2010
Is it really worth it?
Almost everyone is on an ERA scale, and most DIPS estimators are on an ERA scale.
vivaelpujols - January 22, 2010
Using ERA is inconsistent with the current consensus on errors
It’s easy and it’s convenient, but it’s also nonsensical. Why not start weaning ourselves of it?
Graham MacAree - January 22, 2010
I guess
vivaelpujols - January 22, 2010
Has anybody tried to take RA/9 and just adjust it by controlling for the defense quality?
Regressing HR would also probably be a good place to start too. I wonder if a stat like this would work at all. In a round about way tRA kinda might do this (I think its a really cool think about tRA) but we could be direct about it.
Edgar for Pres - January 22, 2010
Rally's WAR does that
vivaelpujols - January 22, 2010
Err... adjusts RA by quality of defense
vivaelpujols - January 22, 2010
I'm just used to the ERA scale
vivaelpujols - January 22, 2010
Yeah if you can't use it to explain talent levels what's the point of projecting it?
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
Would you be interested in seeing a prediction of RA?
A prediction of ERA suffers from most of the same problems as RA (variability, etc.).
Also, people like projecting stuff. Is projecting RBI’s interesting. I kind of think it is. Is it useful or a good description of how good a player is? Not really.
Edgar for Pres - January 21, 2010
Seems kinda pointless
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
Damn
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
Sorry, I misunderstood you. You're referring to his value to teams that don't understand how to evaluate pitchers correctly.
.Taylor - January 21, 2010
No, see below
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
I've always had a soft spot for Pineiro.
He started my first-ever Mariners game that I saw live and was pretty awesome if I recall correctly. (Also, unrelated, but Mike Sweeney nearly killed me that night).
Now that he’s on the Angels, though, fuck him. I hope he turns into Carlos Silva.
I Lick Squirrels - January 21, 2010
Unfortunately that would require an additional 2 year $32M extension.
ARock - January 21, 2010
and a fat suit
coasty141 - January 21, 2010
jesus wept
please stop with the Silva fat jokes
pdb - January 21, 2010
I was surprised to see his BABIP
Wouldn’t we expect to see his BABIP a fair amount higher than .300 since he induces so many ground balls which go for hits more often.
Edgar for Pres - January 21, 2010
GB pitchers also tend to supress line drives
Pineiro’s rate last year was 15.7% per Statcorner and 15.7% per FanGraphs (that’s very odd actually, given they use different batted ball data sources).
vivaelpujols - January 21, 2010
IIRC groundballs go through for the least amount of hits of any batted ball type.
followed somewhat closely by fly balls, and line drives are at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. You would expect an extreme GB pitcher to have a pretty low BABIP.
Terminator X - January 21, 2010
2009 numbers
GB: .237 BABIP
FB: .138 BABIP (.224 BA)
LD: .724 BABIP (.732 BA)
Jeff Sullivan - January 21, 2010
Actually groundballs result in more hits than flyballs
Don’t have the exact numbers handy but I think the average babip for groundballs is around .280, while it’s something like .210 for flyballs and .750 for line drives.
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
Or yeah those are for a different year but roughly the same distribution
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
Yeah I realized that shortly after posting,
but I had to get back to work from my lunch break so no time to correct. I think what I was thinking was that when accounting for the fact that GB rarely result in xBH and flyballs frequently do then they’re roughly even in terms of value. Regardless, GB still result in a pretty low babip so I don’t think we should expect a regression in his babip solely because he’s a GB pitcher (though there are other reasons that perhaps we should)
Terminator X - January 21, 2010
Despite the fact that he is due for a good amount of regression, this signing still really annoyed me.
Griffin Cooper - January 21, 2010
Same; I hate Piniero but I also hate the thought of him being an Angel
It’s a strange paradox, one which may cause my brain to explode if I think about it too much
Corco - January 21, 2010
My first comment on this site
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Piniero is not ever welcome back to the Mariners.
I love him signing with the Angels, he should never have signed with a AL team and soon he and the Angels will find out what the Mariners and Red Sox already know……..he sucks and he needs to be in the NL with Dave Duncan. I can see it now……he will be 7-15 with a 5.27 ERA.
spokanecougar - January 21, 2010
But what will his meaningful numbers be?
Griffin Cooper - January 21, 2010
To be fair, if he goes 7-15 with a 5.27 ERA, I wouldn't care if he had a tRA+ of 200.
CapSea - January 21, 2010
Griffin Cooper?!
katal - January 21, 2010
Hey!
Griffin Cooper - January 21, 2010
Yo!
katal - January 21, 2010
Can I getcho numba?
.Taylor - January 22, 2010
REPRESENTIN' the 206!
ToddK - January 22, 2010
So are you the nemesis of seattlecougar?
Fin - January 21, 2010
I can't wait till Pineiro shuts down the M's
ryanfea - January 21, 2010
I can't wait until fuck you.
Kirk - January 21, 2010
He may derive pleasure from this
I hope you can’t even get hard enough to fuck yourself.
Edgar for Pres - January 21, 2010
Won't ever happen, we have Casey Kotchman
Griffin Cooper - January 21, 2010
May someone cut open your scrotum just enough that your balls fall out slowly and painfully.
CapSea - January 21, 2010
At least you have1995 I suppose
ryanfea - January 21, 2010
Well thanks for stopping by, don't let the door perforate your asshole on the way out
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
Sometimes it's a good idea to go away.
CapSea - January 21, 2010
I'll follow your advice Sir
I’m probably already close to a ban anyway.
ryanfea - January 21, 2010
This is all time that you could be using to go away.
CapSea - January 21, 2010
Nothing good comes from making inflammatory comments on other blogs.
Go back from whence you came.
abender20 - January 21, 2010
Has anyone else said fuck you yet?
Griffin Cooper - January 21, 2010
dammit
Griffin Cooper - January 21, 2010
Beat you to it.
Kirk - January 21, 2010
I can't wait until his pitching hand is shattered by a Figgins liner
Bearskin Rugburn - January 21, 2010
I am prepared for the inevitable
Dewey N - January 21, 2010
Sheets + Wang + RHLF bat would be a good way to fill in the rest of our budget, methinks.
lailaihei - January 21, 2010
If we can afford all that which we most likely can't.
Although I am interested in Wang.
Kirk - January 21, 2010
Tell us something we don't know.
abender20 - January 21, 2010
Set myself up for that one.
Kirk - January 21, 2010
I figure Sheets will be around $7.5 million once incentives sit in.
Hard to get a read on Wang’s price, but I’d be surprised if it’s more than $1.5 million or so… Then I think we can live with a cheap RH platoon in LF.
lailaihei - January 21, 2010
I think we're all interested in Wang if the price is right.
katal - January 21, 2010
Speak for yourself man.
I don’t swing that way.
Fin - January 21, 2010
Always.
Griffin Cooper - January 21, 2010
I'd rather trade Lopez
Poochie - January 21, 2010
We won't get any value for him.
lailaihei - January 21, 2010
If there's truth to the Liriano rumors we would
OlSalty - January 21, 2010
Are they rumors or just speculation as something that makes sense?
lailaihei - January 21, 2010
They are legitimate
Jeff Sullivan - January 21, 2010
Felix and Liriano in the same rotation?
Even though Liriano isn’t quite what he was hyped up to be a few years ago, that would still be awesome!
Fin - January 21, 2010
We'll totally dominate 2006!
katal - January 21, 2010
Sadly, I don't think any team will give up anything valuable for Lopez
when Hudson is still chillin as a free agent, and the team looking to sign him has leverage due to the economic climate.
chadam189 - January 21, 2010
I can see teams that don't value defense particularly high viewing Lopez as the more attractive 2B option.
Even teams that do like defense may conceivably see Lopez as being “adequate” at second, while Hudson may be seen as someone who, though once marvelous with a glove, has now lost a step and is more of a question mark going into the future.
katal - January 21, 2010
Plus we won't even look racist because we don't need anymore affirmative action hires.
Poochie - January 21, 2010
I don't think we look racist.
We look like the Michael Jackson, “We are the world” music video.
I mean come on, we even got an Aussie.
Andrew E - January 22, 2010
Yeah, and last season we had a Canadian. Racist? Pshaw!
ToddK - January 22, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.