For as long as it remains healthy, the upper bit of the Mariner bullpen promises to be really good. When you combine David Aardsma, Mark Lowe, Brandon League, and Shawn Kelley's 2009 performances, you get a strikeout an inning and a 3.6 FIP, and there's not a team in baseball that wouldn't be thrilled to have any one of them, except the Astros, because the Astros are stupid.
It's behind those guys, though, that the situation becomes a little less clear. Which isn't to suggest that this issue is unique to the Mariners. We're talking middle relief. I always get a kick out of whenever Yankee fans stress out about their middle relievers, because middle relievers, almost by definition, aren't good. A good middle reliever isn't a middle reliever anymore, and while stocking your bullpen with six or seven closer candidates is a nice fantasy, it's neither realistic nor cost-efficient. Every bullpen's going to have a guy or three who's just there to throw innings and not lose games on purpose, and that's something every baseball fan has in common.
Beneath the top of the Mariner bullpen lie two roles. Possibly three, but given the offseason the M's just had, a six-man bullpen looks most likely, at least for the bulk of the year. One of those spots is going to go to one of the losers of the fifth starter competition, be it Doug Fister, Jason Vargas, Garrett Olson, or whoever. Which would seem to leave one spot open for pretty much every other pitcher in camp.
Dave talked about this a little bit yesterday, and his is a good post. The reason I'm writing this up is because I wanted to go a little more in depth on Sean White and Kanekoa Texeira. White you'll remember for making two appearances per game a season ago. Texeira you'll remember for being our Rule 5 pick in December. Both guys will enter camp competing for a job, and while there's no guarantee, my read is that they'll be competing for the same job, as the two frontrunners.
Oh, there'll be others. Josh Fields. Ricky Orta. David Pauley. Mike Koplove. More. Spring training is always littered with potential relievers, and the M's will have a number to sort through. But while the list of names runs on, at the top are White and Texeira, and unless the M's open up another job, only one of them will be able to make it.
So which should they pick? This would appear to be one of the rare instances in which spring training performance - or at least spring training appearance - will actually matter. There are enough questions about every candidate that the coaching staff and front office will want to see everyone in person and observe how they're throwing. With that said, though, I think we already have enough information to come up with a preference.
Consider Sean White. It's no secret that Wakamatsu loved White a year ago. Before going down with an injury, he appeared in a lot of games and soaked up a lot of innings, serving as a middle-inning bridge between the starters and the setup. And given that he ran a 2.80 ERA and had a .216 average against, it's easy to see why Wak kept going back to the well. White rarely imploded, and managers like relievers who rarely implode.
But as many of you should recognize, White didn't actually pitch very well. Or, if you prefer, he didn't pitch in such a way that portends good future success. I know he came in with that flashy new fastball, but all it and the rest of his stuff got him were the following rankings, out of 213 relievers with at least 30 innings pitched:
O-Swing%: 105th
Z-Swing%: 191st
O-Contact%: 192nd
Z-Contact%: 207th
Contact%: 207th
F-Strike%: 186th
GB%: 62nd
Strike%: 126th
Don't like percentages and rankings? No big deal. The take-home message here is that, despite the mid-90s heat, White was extraordinarily hittable, and for a guy who supposedly keeps the ball on the ground, his groundball rate was only all right. Meaning White allows a lot of contact, with a good deal of it launching the ball in the air.
I don't mean to convey the impression that Sean White is bad. He isn't. He throws enough strikes and keeps the ball down often enough to avoid disaster, which makes him palatable as a 6th inning guy. But he doesn't strike anyone out, ever, he doesn't have a plan of attack against lefties, and our ability to count on him to replicate last year's performance going forward is uncertain given that shoulder trouble that ended his season. White's dealt with shoulder trouble his entire career. We don't know how it's looking these days. But if we're going off last year's numbers, White can't afford to sacrifice any talent if he wants to hang around. Sean White was barely acceptable in peak shape. What are shoulder concerns going to do to an already iffy baseline?
Enter Kanekoa Texeira. We haven't talked about Texeira a whole lot around here, but the 24 year old Rule 5 pick seems to fit the profile of the guy the M's could use to soak up a middle inning or two. Texeira's stuff isn't extraordinary. He's got a sinking fastball in the 89-92 range, a decent slider, and a change that I can only imagine is "in development". But he's got two things going for him:
-a low (but not quite sidearm) delivery that makes him tough on righties
-a high groundball rate
If he's starting to sound like Sean Green, then congratulations, your brain works. Texeira's groundball rate has exceeded 60% in each year as a professional from rookie ball through AA, and last season his 63% was among the very highest in the Eastern League. That's a ton of groundballs, and even though GB% drops a little as one advances through the higher levels, Texeira's got a lot to give. Sean White, if you're curious, had a 49% GB% in Tacoma two years ago. Texeira has rather convincingly demonstrated a superior ability to keep the ball out of the air.
And the rest of the stuff? I don't like to put too much weight on numbers accumulated in the low- and mid-minors, but Texeira's managed a K/9 over 8 through AA, and though his walks can be a problem, that's neither surprising nor a critical concern. He's also demonstrated an ability to pitch pretty well against lefties, although given his profile as a pitcher I'd caution against assuming he'd be fine against the Adam Dunns and Adrian Gonzalezes of the world. Minor league splits be damned, I have to believe that a near-sidearming righty without much of a changeup will hit some speed bumps against advanced lefty competition.
Still, even allowing for some walks and some trouble against lefties, Texeira can miss bats and, more importantly, keep the infield busy. Busier than White can. White posted a decent GB%, a K/9 of 3.9, and a BB/9 of 2.8. Given Texeira's groundballs, is it really reasonable to suggest that he'd still be the worse Major League reliever? Throw in the fact that White has shoulder questions while Texeira, to the best of my knowledge, has stayed healthy, and I imagine any hesitation has more to do with Texeira's inexperience than with his actual ability. And inexperience isn't much of a drawback.
There are going to be a lot of guys competing for a very little bullpen opening next month. Among them, Sean White is the on-paper favorite, as he's got all the recent Major League experience and Wak really liked him when he was healthy. However, the team is aware of both his shoulder issue as well as the discrepancy between his 2009 ERA and his peripherals, and given Kanekoa Texeira's seemingly superior ability and Rule 5 status, look for him to get a lot of attention. White may be in front for the time being, but one slip-up and his job could end up going to somebody younger and probably better.
(If, say, Josh Fields wants to wow everyone and suddenly turn awesome, that'd be fine too.)
1 recs | 100 comments
Amazing, I was thinking about the 5th starter all day. Would it make any sense to just leave it open?
Play it as a platoon amongst the eligible pitchers, kind of what happened last year anyway. I was thinking with Felix and Lee hopefully pitching strong all season at the top of the order, this might be one of those seasons where the middle relievers/back of the order types are looking for innings anyway. Snell might work the bullpen a bit more than the rest of them.
I dunno, probably a retarded idea. There’s just so many long inning guys on the staff this year, it might be a way to keep them all. Maybe even break entirely with traditional, consider it a 4 man front for short intervals with an irregular 5th start to break it up so a pitcher works 2 starts then gets an extra couple days off. Work it around the off days since they bounce the 5th start once in awhile anyway. I was looking at the calendar last night, it might work.
Kermit. - February 19, 2010
Except this was all the bullpen guys dumbass.
Kermit. - February 19, 2010
Man...Sean Green was awesome.
I miss him more than J.J.
Also, whoooooo Astros bashing!
SethGrandpa - February 19, 2010
Brandon Lyon is laughing all the way to the bank.
Opisgod - February 19, 2010
I hope Josh Fields would make it
Maybe he isn’t the best but it would be the most interesting.
Edgar for Pres - February 19, 2010
Pardon my ignorance but don't we want at least one Lefty in the Pen?
Are we expecting that will be Fister or Vargas, or does this give Luke French any sort of chance?
magistermilitum - February 19, 2010
Having a lefty is ideal.
But the job is still going to go to the one who has the best Spring Training of the group, lefty or no.
ThundaPC - February 19, 2010
It would be nice, but it's not necessary
and there’s a decent chance that the last guy is a lefty anyway (French, Vargas, Olson, Hill…)
Jeff Sullivan - February 19, 2010
Are you really convinced that groundball pitchers are a better fit for Safeco?
We have good infield defense, that’s important for a groundballer, but we have great outfielders too, as well as a large park that supresses fly balls. It’s not likely that a groundball pitcher is preferable to a flyball pitcher in Safeco Field.
nathaniel dawson - February 19, 2010
How is it not likely?
Yes, a flyballer will see relatively more of Safeco’s HR restricting benefits, but in the groundballers will be giving up less home runs as well.
Graham MacAree - February 19, 2010
It's what you said right there.
Flyball pitchers should see relatively more of Safeco’s restricting benefits.
Obviously, Safeco supresses runs, and while we don’t know exactly how much in every way it does that, most people feel that it’s because of the large dimensions and a climate that reduces the flight distance of flyballs. That results in fewer home runs being hit and possibly fewer extra-base hits as well. Both classes of pitchers should be helped by Safeco, but a pitcher that gives up more flyballs will likely get more of a benefit than a pitcher who doesn’t.
nathaniel dawson - February 19, 2010
The park factor doesn't make up for the difference in run value between a flyball and a groundball, though
It makes keeping a flyballer in the rotation more tolerable than he would be in a more hitter-friendly park, sure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s preferable, or equivalent. And again, we’re only talking about a part of a pitcher’s ability.
OlSalty - February 19, 2010
Yes, but there will still be more home runs hit off pitchers who give up more fly balls
Graham MacAree - February 19, 2010
Well, yes, absolutely
But which of the two types of pitchers would you expected to derive more benefit from Safeco?
nathaniel dawson - February 19, 2010
Flyballers, of course
So what? Getting ground balls is still better.
Graham MacAree - February 19, 2010
Seeing as how all infields are shaped the same.
You’re ignoring the magnitudes in favor of the improvement.
abender20 - February 20, 2010
Safeco limits the amount of homeruns a flyballer will give up somewhat, but it doesn't eliminate them
A groundball is still a more desirable outcome than a flyball, in general.
OlSalty - February 19, 2010
Well, Salty, it's not just about flyballs and groundballs
There’s a whole suite of characteristics that distinguish GB pitchers from FB pitchers. Groundball ptichers do some things better than flyballs pitchers, and flyball pitchers do some things better than groundball pitchers. They seem to be equally as effective at keeping runners from scoring, and that’s the bottom line. No pitcher gives up just groundballs and no pitcher gives up just flyballs. They also get strikeouts and give up walks and hit batters and give up line drives and popups and have foul balls hit off of them and have errors commited by their fielders and give up stolen bases and yadda yadda.
You have to look at the whole picture of what happens while a pitcher is on the mound.
nathaniel dawson - February 19, 2010
They are not equally as effective at keeping runners from scoring, and this appears to be the sticking point in your line of thinking
I’d recommend reading Matthews’ new posts at Fangraphs for more information.
OlSalty - February 19, 2010
At least, not as effective at keeping runs from scoring -because- of their batted ball profiles, anyways
OlSalty - February 19, 2010
Go read Matthews articles at Fangraphs again.
He’s not making a comparison of flyball pitchers vs. groundball pitchers, and he stated this in the first article of the series.
nathaniel dawson - February 19, 2010
Well neither am I so that's just perfect
We are talking about batted ball outcomes, not the overall pitcher. You are arguing that flyball pitchers achieve the same results on average as groundballers, discounting missed bats and command, and that is not right. You seem to think pitching up in the zone like flyball pitchers do allows them to generate more strikeouts, while groundballers allow more homeruns, enough to offset the difference in run value on those batted ball results. Matthew’s conclusions do not jive with that at all.
OlSalty - February 19, 2010
More homeruns on flyballs, that is*
OlSalty - February 19, 2010
And I don't think I have ever argued that groundballs vs. flyballs was the end all, be all of pitchers so I'd appreciate it you would stop suggesting I ever made that argument.
OlSalty - February 19, 2010
.
Well, sure. You also have to accept that ground balls are better than fly balls.
Graham MacAree - February 19, 2010
Oh, Graham, I have no doubt of that.
But isn’t it also obvious that flyball pitchers do some things better than groundball pitchers that are also important in preventing runs?
nathaniel dawson - February 19, 2010
In general, yes
Why are we talking in general? A groundball pitcher doesn’t have to be striking out less batters than a flyball pitcher. They just tend to.
Graham MacAree - February 19, 2010
I guess we're talking generally because generally, people conflate being a groundball pitcher with being a better pitcher
Being a good pitcher or not has little to do with being able to induce groundballs. The very act of pitching in such a way as to induce groundballs, while reducing the very damaging home runs, also creates other scoring opportunities for the opposition. Those extra runs tend to balance out the extra runs given up by flyball pitchers on home runs.
nathaniel dawson - February 19, 2010
And you don't seem to be able to look past that
Pitcher A: 20%K, 7%BB, 30% GB
Pitcher B: 20%K, 7%BB, 55% GB.
Pick one.
Graham MacAree - February 19, 2010
And just because I have the tRA spreadsheet handy
Correlation coefficient, GB% to tRA: -0.12
In general, groundball pitchers are better than flyball pitchers.
Graham MacAree - February 19, 2010
This is a fictitious pitcher, right?
I know you’re trying to say, hey, just look at groundballs. but I guess my question would be, why?
If you’re asking me to choose one and only one batter/pitcher outcome, I’d choose strikeouts. If you’re asking me to choose between one of the batted ball outcomes, I’d choose popups.
But what’s the point?
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Keeping the ball on the ground is more of a skill than inducing popups
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
Is that really true?
It’s pretty clear that certain pitchers are consistently able to induce more popups than others. That would suggest it’s a skill not just random occurence.
How would you determine that it’s more of a skill than inducing groundballs?
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Year to year correlation
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
And wouldn't the year-to-year correlation naturally show more variation in popups?
There are far more groundballs hit than popups, so the correlation would probably be greater based on the way probabilities work.
That doesn’t mean it’s not as much of a skill, it just means we’re measuring a smaller sample of data, and our confidence level isn’t as high.
Also, Matthew just posted a couple more installments of his series on Fangraphs. They’re certainly relevant to this issue.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
It is interesting because it basically confirms what everyone has been trying to tell you
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
I have no comment on the validity of Matthew's findings
Hopefull, people (who are smarter than me) will take a close look at his methods and criteria and we can get a better idea if it all makes sense and if there’s a significant correlation there.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
You don't need to take a closer look at his methods
What he did is simple and is the most straighforward way to see if there is a correlation.
Everybody is saying that if everything is held constant, groundballs are really good outcomes on balls in play.
You say that groundball pitchers don’t strike out players as much (?) or better in some other way.
Evidence shows that you are wrong. Unless you show evidence that you are correct or have some concrete reason for evaluating pitchers this way, I think there isn’t much more in this conversation.
Edgar for Pres - February 20, 2010
Edgar!
I just love it when you talk so demanding like that!
“You say that groundball pitchers don’t strike out players as much (?) or better in some other way.”
I’m not sure what all of that sentence is suppose to say…..but it’s pretty obvious that groundball pitchers don’t strike out as many batters as other pitchers. This has been known for quite some time, and Matthew once again showed evidence of this in his article about K and BB rates.
You want charts!
That’s using 3 years of Fangraphs data, w/ a minimum of 100IP. Now this doesn’t show us anything different than what Matthew posted at Fangraphs. There appears to be a slight positive correlation with GB/FB rate and preventing runs. I imagine the R> would also be very low, but I don’t know how to do one so I didn’t.
I’ve posted a couple of other times on here using a simple method of splitting a large group of pitchers into 3 categories based on GB/FB ratio and looking at RAA for each group. Year-to-year, the RAA ranking varies for each group, but there’s no clear trend as to which group is superior. If I do this for really large samples, like 6 to 7 years, it does seem to show that GB pitchers have an edge. But it’s only a slight edge, like about a tenth to a fifth of a run advantage. I can do that again if you’d like, but do we need to see that?
“Everybody is saying that if everything is held constant, groundballs are really good outcomes on balls in play.”
And that’s what I have a problem with. Can we really assume that we can keep everything else constant and increase the GB rate? I doubt that’s the way it works in real life. There are a lot of inter-related skills going on when we look at GB pitchers and FB pitchers. And even if we could do that, how useful is it? In order for it to be of any use to us, we’d have to be comparing two pitchers with almost identical stats in all other areas, and how often would something like that come up? All other things being equal, a higher GB rate would likely result in fewer runs scored, but are you really going to find two pitchers that are equal in all other regards?
“You don’t need to take a closer look at his methods.”
Well yes, we should. Any time a person does work and posts their findings, we should take a close look at it and try to determine if both his methods and findings are sound. It’s basic scientific principle. I don’t know how important that would be for the work Matthew did, but like I said, I’ll let other people smarter than myself look at it and see if it’s significant.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
You don't have to assume that we can keep everything else constant and increase the GB rate
It just shows that GBs are better than FBs so getting ground balls is a positive skill, much like a low walk rate or a high K rate. Maybe not to the same extent, but it is a skill and should be taken into consideration when judging pitchers.
Dewey N - February 20, 2010
I'm not saying looking at groundball rate is useless.
And certainly, for team context, it should be considered. But using it as a primary identifier of skill seems off-base to me. The relatively small benefit a pitcher gets from being a groundball pitcher doesn’t seem to warrant the emphasis that’s placed on it. Is it a positive? Yes, I think so. But is it really as important as people seem to think it is? That’s where my opinion seems to diverge from most others.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Ok
This plot does not show that pitchers with ground ball rates strike out less guys. An R^2 of 0.02 shows us that we should basically not try to conclude anything from this plot. You can not conclude that pitchers which get more groundballs strike out more players from this data.
You also misquoted me. I said “What he did is simple and is the most straighforward way to see if there is a correlation.” There isn’t anything to check in his methods. There just isn’t anything to check.
If you want to evaluate a pitcher, you need to look at what he does well and what he doesn’t do well. Everybody says pitchers are either flyball or groundball pitchers but really they are just different shades of grey. When we are looking at two pitchers and trying to determine who is better we must look at all their components. Just saying he is a groundball (or flyball) pitcher and coming to a conclusion is foolish. Therefore, we need to figure out which components are good and which components are bad. Obviously strikeouts are good and walks are bad. From an overwhelming database of research, groundballs have been shown to be better than flyballs. When evaluating how good a pitcher is, we shouldn’t clump them into bins containing either groundballs or flyballs but we need to take a look at the complete pitcher. There are pitchers with high FB% and low K% and pitchers with high GB% and high K% as well as the reverse. There is no reason to say, “This pitcher gets a lot of strikeouts so he must be good” or “This pitcher gives up a lot of flyballs so he must be bad”. We need to look at every component that makes up the pitcher since they are all unique. They may be similar to other pitchers but we shouldn’t us titles to draw complete conclusions about a pitcher. We know how to value all of the pitcher’s skills (K%, BB%, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, etc).
Edgar for Pres - February 20, 2010
Not in popup per fly ball vs gb per ball in play rate, no.
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
Where did I imply or suggest that groundballers are a better fit for Safeco?
Lefty, contact flyball pitchers will derive the most benefit from our park. And Texeira appears better than White.
Jeff Sullivan - February 19, 2010
My mistake, then
Maybe I misunderstood your intended use of GB rate in your comparison. You did, after all, say that Texeira’s groundball rate was something he had going for him.
But since we do play half our games in Safeco, shouldn’t we want to consider how that affects certain players? And yes, we play half our games on the road, but we would expect that taken as a whole, those parks will play pretty neutrally. If you’re comparing two players against one another and are using batted ball data and how that plays in Safeco to do that, wouldn’t any advantage in that area go to a flyball pitcher?
(caveat — I’m going under the assumption that flyball pitchers actually do receive more of a benefit from our park, although I don’t think any one has ever done work to confirm that)
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Just because he said Texeira's groundball rate is something he has going for him does not mean he suggested groundballers are a better fit for Safeco
Texeira’s groundball rate is something he has going for him. This is because it’s likely that Texeira will be able to match White’s K rate and while BB rate may be a problem, the fact that he can generate more groundballs than Sean White is a positive because groundballs are better than flyballs.
Dewey N - February 20, 2010
"the fact that he can generate more groundballs than Sean White is a positive because groundballs are better than flyballs."
In and of themselves, groundballs are better than flyballs. but pitching in such a way as to generate more groundballs also generates some other unwanted results, such as more baserunners, and possibly more advancement opportunities on batted ball outs. Overall, a pitcher that has the same K rate as another but a higher GB rate will probably be better, but the difference would also be slight, it would assume a comparable walk rate as well, and might be more than compensated for by our park. In comparing the two pitchers above, we shouldn’t assume there’d be any meaningful difference by using their ground ball rates as a comparison point.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
No, this just isn't true
A pitcher with the same K rate and a higher ground ball rate is much better than one with a high fly ball rate.
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
It's not a slight difference, it's a huge difference
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
So I guess I could ask the same question of both Graham and Salty
How much is a huge diffierence? How much is much better?
What exactly are you basing this on?
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Using Graham's old tRA spreadsheet and plugging in a little Kevin Slowey data
We have two pitchers. Each of them faced 394 batters, striking out 75, walking 15, yada yada yada.
Pitcher A: 55% groundballs, 20% line drives, 6% infield flies, 10.6% HR/FB
Pitcher B: 35% groundballs, 20% line drives, 11% infield flies, 10.6% HR/FB
Pitcher A: 4.09 tRA
Pitcher B: 4.79 tRA
Pitcher B generates 15 more infield flies in this example, but also allows six more home runs. Home runs are bad.
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
Absolutely home runs are bad
But two pitchers? And I’m not sure what you did there. Did you just use one year of Slowey’s Major League results and change around some of the inputs? And why use tRA? It’s a run estimator. Runs allowed are a direct measurement of pitchers ability to prevent runs.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
What?
How is that even close to true?
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
How is it that you could think that's not true?
Runs allowed is a direct measurement of a pitchers ability to prevent runs. I mean, seriously, how is that not an accurate statement?
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Because they play in front of a defence.
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
Which doesn't contradict anything about my statement that it's a direct measure of runs allowed.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
You are saying that the defence has no impact on runs allowed then
It’s all pitcher ability.
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
Come on, Graham, I said no such thing.
It would be absolutely silly for me to think or say something like that.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
There is no way to reconcile your two statements
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
Huh?
I don’t even know what you mean by that.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
.
What did you mean by this, if you are not suggesting that runs allowed is entirely the result of the pitchers ability and not also the defense behind him? Maybe you meant something else, but it sounds like something that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
It is a direct measurement, right?
That’s all I meant by it. It doesn’t imply that it’s entirely the result of a pitchers ability or that it is not influenced by the defense. It’s just the only direct measurement we have.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Well, no, it's not
Because it’s not really a measurement of a pitcher’s ability at all when it includes defense. It is including a variable entirely independent of the pitchers ability, and that is wrong.
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
I think he does have a point
It might be the only direct measure depending on how you define what makes a direct measure. FIP, xFIP, and tRA all take some aspects of performance and infer pitcher talent. I’m not trying to say that R/9 is a great metric or useful or better than any of the good ones but depending on your definition of “direct” I can see his point.
Edgar for Pres - February 20, 2010
It's not a direct measure of the pitcher's ability, though
It’s a direct measure of the pitcher’s ability AND the ability of the defense behind him combined.
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
Yeah that still means it is a direct measure of a pitcher's ability
its a bad one because there is bias in the measurement but it is direct and doesn’t require you to infer anything.
Edgar for Pres - February 20, 2010
How is it direct?
It’s being filtered through a defence
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
It's as direct as you can get. It counts all the runs that cross the plate while a pitcher is on the mound.
You could technically say that it’s not a direct measure when a pticher leaves a game with runners on and they score before the end of the inning, so there is that. Other than that, it’s the only direct measurement we have. Even ERA is infered to some degree.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Do you understand what 'direct' means in this context?
I don’t think you do. What you are implying by choosing to use that word is that everything you need to know about a pitcher’s ability to prevent runs is reflected in their RA, which is inarguably wrong.
Aaron Campeau - February 20, 2010
You absolutely read what I said wrong.
What I said doesn’t have anything to do with what you just suggested. I didn’t imply anything beyond what the literal reading of my comment says.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
So how is it a direct correlation, then?
Because that’s what you said.
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
The literal meaning of your comment means what I said it does
Aaron Campeau - February 20, 2010
Ok I'll use an analogy
Standing on a scale is a direct measure of seeing how much you weigh. I don’t think there is any complaint with this statement.
Your weight can be skewed if you just drank 10 beers before you stepped on the scale. Now how much do you weigh? Should you count all the water that was in those beers that is now in your stomach? You are probably going to pee it out any minute. Your weight is being skewed by an external factor. Its still a direct measure even if there is bias in the system.
I just think there is an issue with the definition of direct. I can see how R/9 is a direct measure for a pitcher. I’d assume you believe there are no direct measures of pitcher ability because your definition of direct measurement is different. Anyway, I brought this up just because I can see different view on what “direct” means.
Edgar for Pres - February 20, 2010
You're twisting the argument by turning the "direct measurement" point into a physical measurement, which is direct in a different dimension.
A standard bathroom scale would be akin to ERA. If you drink 10 beers, it will count those toward your weight and ignore your “true” weight. A magical tRA scale would ignore the beers.
abender20 - February 21, 2010
Because tRA uses the run value of each ball in play and allowed for a simple calculation
I only mentioned Slowey to explain why I was randomly using 394, 75, 15, etc.
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
But is it wise to just change around the inputs for one pitcher?
I’m pretty sure that’s not the way it works in real life. A pitcher could try to change the way he pitches to induce more flyballs, but you would probably expect to see changes in other areas that come along with it. And you’d be hard pressed to find a whole lot of pitchers that are going to have almost identical component stats across the board but have a much higher groundball or flyball rate.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
But that's exactly the example we're talking about
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
Texeira and White you mean?
Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. If you’re talking about Texeira and White, they don’t appear to have equivalent SO or BB rates in the minors. A superficial look at least, doesn’t make them seem to very similar to one another.
I think I missed what you meant.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
I was responding to this example
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2010/2/19/1318428/2010/2/19/1318428/that-fifth-bullpen-spot#31098654
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
We're talking about this
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
Just curious
Over 200 batters faced (which seems to be ~how much action the fifth man in the bullpen gets), how many runs is this difference in tRA worth?
Dewey N - February 20, 2010
Texeira seems likely to post a significantly higher GB% than White
White had a K/9 of 3.9 and a BB/9 of 2.8, which are poor figures. Odds are Texeira is the better pitcher.
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
Safeco's effect on flyballers is not nearly great enough to erase the gap between a GB and a FB
Giving up fly balls is bad, everywhere. It’s just a little less bad in Seattle.
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
I also wouldn't assume there's any gap between FB pitchers and GB pitchers.
Nothing that I’ve seen to this point convinces me that there’s any difference that’s meaningful.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
Is a pitcher who gives up more home runs better or worse than a pitcher who does not give up a lot of home runs
Graham MacAree - February 20, 2010
Well then you're just being obstinate
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
I don't know if that's fair
(mirroring Matthew’s work)
2007-2009, minimum 100 IP, the correlation between GB% and RA is incredible low; r = 0.08.
The average Major League groundball pitcher does not appear to prevent (m)any more runs than the average Major League flyball pitcher. However, I’m not talking about average pitchers here. I’m talking about Sean White and Kanekoa Texeira, and based on the evidence, I believe Texeira to be superior.
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
I wouldn't disagree with your preference for Texeira
In fact, I wouldn’t even be able to form much of an opinion on that myself, because of the difficulties with projecting Major League performance from Minor League stats and the further complication that they’ve both been primarily relievers. I like what he’s done so far, but I don’t really know how that would translate to the Majors.
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
I can't know for sure, but given that White established a pretty mediocre baseline
I’m happy to take my chances with the groundball guy who can miss bats and stay healthy.
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
I would have to say that White doesn't particularly inspire much confidence for me
He’d rank pretty low on my list of all the possibles. Koplove is one that’s interesting that doesn’t get talked about much. He’s had good success for the most part throughout his career wherever he’s pitched, but it might just be that he’s become good at getting AAA hitters out. He’s not old, but he is at the age that he may not be able to continue that success in the majors.
And the name, right?
nathaniel dawson - February 20, 2010
I like Koplove, but he's old, he doesn't have a 40-man spot, and there's little reason to believe he's better than Texeira
Jeff Sullivan - February 20, 2010
You're right
I misread the claim he was making here because of the other discussions. Sorry about that, Nathaniel
OlSalty - February 20, 2010
In addition
You realize we only play in Seattle half the time, right?
Jeff Sullivan - February 19, 2010
The rest is in Kansas City, right?
abender20 - February 20, 2010
Does Texeira's status as a Rule 5 draftee affect the decision at all?
In that you know he has to be on the roster or be offered back to his former club, which is not the case with White.
Gihyou - February 19, 2010
Or rather I mean to ask how much does it affect the decision
Obviously it has to factor in at least a little bit, but I don’t know how intensely.
Gihyou - February 19, 2010
I would think that it depends solely on his performance and not the performance of White.
The better Teixeira is, the more likely the organization is to retain him, regardless of whether or not White is perfect through spring training. If Teixeira pitches like crap, they’d keep him if he was equal with White, but if Teixeira lights it up, but White is still better, I think the Mariners would see the benefit of keeping both of the men in the organization.
thehemogoblin - February 19, 2010
No idea
Like you said, it matters a little bit, as does the fact that White still has options. But Texeira being a Rule 5’er will not make this decision on its own.
Jeff Sullivan - February 19, 2010
Whew, this was a lengthy thread that I somehow completely missed, but here's an objection!
Sean White’s GB rates in the minors were great before his injury, and have been half-way decent as a reliever. Given the fact that White spent so much of his time in the minors as a starter, they’re not quite as relevant. Texeira’s always been a reliever (until 2009).
The question here is what Texeira would do in MLB with his 86-89 MPH fastball. Velocity isn’t everything, clearly, but I’m also loathe to say that a career minor league reliever is automatically going to be a better GB pitcher than White based in large part on what he did in A ball and below (and we know that GB rate increases as you move down in leagues; that is, league average in rookie ball is higher than A ball, which is higher than A+/AA, which is higher than AAA). Aaron Laffey’s career GB% in the minors was 62%, but he was under 49% last year with the Tribe.
marc w - February 21, 2010
Don't know if Laffey's the best example
2007, AAA: 64%
2007, MLB: 65%
2008, AAA: 55%
2008, MLB: 55%
White had a 56% groundball rate way back in 2006, but now we have two years’ worth of data putting him around 48-50%. He’s still a groundball pitcher, kind of, but not to the degree that Texeira is, and Texeira’s at 62% over 120 innings in AA.
Jeff Sullivan - February 21, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.