I hadn’t spent much if any time looking at Baseball Prospectus’ (BP) 2011 projections, that is, until now. Guess what: There’s another reason why it’s great when your team wins the World Series: their “Depth Chart” appears free to all at BP. This is also the case for the Texas Rangers, who in case you’ve forgotten, lost to the Giants in the Fall Classic. In five games.
They call their projections PECOTA – Pouring Endlessly and Cleverly Over These Algorithms. I made that up, but that’s because I don’t know what it actually stands for. Your turn to try.
For those Giants fans that are already worried the Giants are being underestimated, don’t be. For starters, you should never be worried of that because it doesn’t really matter. No, really, it doesn’t matter. You also shouldn’t this year because it’s simply not the case.
Baseball Prospectus is currently projecting the Giants to win the NL West by three games, besting the Dodgers. They have the Giants winning 90 games (two less than 2010) and the Dodgers winning 87. Beyond that, the Rockies grab 83, the Friars fall to just below .500 with 80 and the Diamondbacks… well their still in the cellar, though 74 wins is a nine game improvement.
But there’s more. BP also is projecting the Giants to have 1) the second best run differential (RD) in the National League at +86 runs and 2) the second lowest figure of runs against (RA). First is of course the Phillies. Just kidding. It’s the Dodgers. What?
Actually, this makes perfect sense. A couple reasons: the Dodgers have a solid rotation which includes Clayton Kershaw – a budding ace – to go with Chad Billingsley, Ted Lilly, Hiroki Kuroda and Vicente Padilla, as well as a very good bullpen.
I guess Padilla is having some issues with a nerve in his forearm. I guess we could start singing a jingle like Jonny Gomes, but we won’t do that here. But only because Padilla’s no ace. I mean, if Kershaw goes down I reserve the right to celebrate. Rob Neyer said I could.
I said a couple of reasons. I meant a few. I always thought a couple meant two, a few meant three and some meant four. That’s just me, but I digress. The other reason is the ballpark the Giants, Phillies and Dodgers play in. The Giants and Dodgers play in more neutral, less offensive parks. Actually, the difference isn’t what some people make of it because the Citizens Bank Park is regarded as a more neutral park when you really get down to it than is generally perceived (or portrayed) by most fans and the media. But when push comes to shove, Chavez Ravine (LA) is the most pitcher friendly, followed by AT&T (SF) and then Citizens Bank Park (Philly).
There’s also the fact that despite the Phillies’ wunderrotation – new word – their bullpen probably isn’t as good as the Dodgers’ and Giants’. They are all close though, at least in terms of RD: 637, 640, 657.
As I mentioned in passing earlier, the Giants have the second best run differential. First place does go to the Phillies with their +94 and 91 wins, but that’s just eight runs and one game in the standings. They win the East, in this projection. Rounding out the National League (NL) is the Cardinals with a +62 RD and 87 wins, despite losing Adam Wainwright. Make sure to mark your calendars for the Braves versus Dodgers one game playoff – they’ll fight for the last spot with 87 wins each.
Please also take note of the fact that the Brewers are the next in line with 85 wins. This shouldn’t come as a big surprise to anyone. They added Shaun Marcum and Zack Greinke this offseason and already had a very solid offense anchored by Rickie Weeks, Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder. Standings are very fungible, a little luck (bad or good), an injury here or there, and voila: the Cubs win the Central. This stuff happens.
Personally, I’ll take the Brewers in the Central right now on a whim. I have the right.
That’s the standings, kids. I’ll give you some thoughts on the player projections in due time. Probably. Hint: Brandon Belt is projected to be the second best hitter on the Giants in 2011, but won’t really play enough for it to matter.
Update: BP ran the numbers again and the Brewers are now on top in the Central, although in a virtual tie in the standings with the Cardinals. Waino's loss to Tommy John surgery figures to make a tight race in the Senior Circuit's weakest division.
Insightful baseball analysis for the casual crowd, Moneyball masses and you, the Third and King crew
Showing posts with label Phillies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phillies. Show all posts
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
What does Lee do for the Phillies?
The Phillies won 97 games in 2010. They’ve let Jayson Werth go and signed Cliff Lee to assemble the best rotation in Baseball, no question. Let’s take a look at a few scenarios.
If we consider nothing else, I guess the three spots on the roster that have been most affected have been two rotation spots and right field.
I looked at Werth’s Baseball-reference and Fangraphs WAR for 2010 and gave each a 50% weight. His average WAR was 5.1. I did the same for Kyle Kendrick (.2), Joe Blanton (.6) and Cliff Lee (5.7). Dominic Brown’s I didn’t bother with because he was a late season call up and thus won’t tell us anything.
I then looked at the projections for them for next season by the fans and Bill James at Fangraphs. Werth is expected to put up a 4.4 WAR and Lee a 6.7. For neither Kendrick nor Blanton are there official “WAR” projections, but looking at their statistics I inferred about a .5 WAR for Kendrick and a 2 WAR for Blanton. I’ll use those as their projected WAR.
Finally, I averaged those with the 2010 50/50 split of B-R and FG and got this: Werth (4.75), Kendrick (.35) Blanton (1.3) and Lee (6.2). For Dominic Brown, I took a look at Bill James’ projection and hypothesized a reason WAR of 2.5 for 2011. That’s what we’re going with. Also, keep in mind I am considering all else is holding equal – meaning the remainder of the roster will perform on par with their 2010.
If they’d have brought back Werth and kept the rotation the same, I’d project about a 6.4 WAR between Werth, Kendrick and Blanton.
What about if they didn’t sign Lee, but Werth walked? That’s pretty much what we THOUGHT was going to happen. If we do that, I get a WAR of 4.15 for Brown, Kendrick and Blanton.
Finally, what actually happened. They now look to have Cliff Lee, Dominic Brown and Kyle Kendrick. This is important. The Phillies appear destined to move Joe Blanton, so it’s important to realize that, if this happens, Lee is essentially replacing Blanton, not the five-starter Kendrick. With that, we have a 9.05 WAR for 2011.
So, their improvement from the scenario where they didn’t sign Lee is about 5 wins. That’s a pretty significant change – but then you’d expect that when you sign a player like Lee. But the difference between this year and last year isn’t as significant – we’re talking about 2.5 or 3 wins – because you’ve both lost Werth and then moved out your number four starter (not the five starter) with Cliff Lee. If they are able to or decide to keep Blanton, the gain in value is more significant.
They won 97 games last season, so with the 3 win upgrade they can probably get to 100 in 2011. Perhaps not the huge difference some may have expected. But there are other things to consider here, too. The Phillies lineup is aging, and Ryan Howard isn’t the player he once was. He’s regressing a lot faster than people expected if 2010 was any indication. Also, I see them having significant struggles versus left-handed pitching next season.
But - and a huge but is coming - if Lee makes them better and they get into the playoffs, which he almost certainly will, this move becomes more significant. Come October, Kendrick takes a seat and they go with Halladay, Lee, Oswalt and Hamels, and we Giants fans certainly know how far a dominant rotation can take you in October.
If we consider nothing else, I guess the three spots on the roster that have been most affected have been two rotation spots and right field.
I looked at Werth’s Baseball-reference and Fangraphs WAR for 2010 and gave each a 50% weight. His average WAR was 5.1. I did the same for Kyle Kendrick (.2), Joe Blanton (.6) and Cliff Lee (5.7). Dominic Brown’s I didn’t bother with because he was a late season call up and thus won’t tell us anything.
I then looked at the projections for them for next season by the fans and Bill James at Fangraphs. Werth is expected to put up a 4.4 WAR and Lee a 6.7. For neither Kendrick nor Blanton are there official “WAR” projections, but looking at their statistics I inferred about a .5 WAR for Kendrick and a 2 WAR for Blanton. I’ll use those as their projected WAR.
Finally, I averaged those with the 2010 50/50 split of B-R and FG and got this: Werth (4.75), Kendrick (.35) Blanton (1.3) and Lee (6.2). For Dominic Brown, I took a look at Bill James’ projection and hypothesized a reason WAR of 2.5 for 2011. That’s what we’re going with. Also, keep in mind I am considering all else is holding equal – meaning the remainder of the roster will perform on par with their 2010.
If they’d have brought back Werth and kept the rotation the same, I’d project about a 6.4 WAR between Werth, Kendrick and Blanton.
What about if they didn’t sign Lee, but Werth walked? That’s pretty much what we THOUGHT was going to happen. If we do that, I get a WAR of 4.15 for Brown, Kendrick and Blanton.
Finally, what actually happened. They now look to have Cliff Lee, Dominic Brown and Kyle Kendrick. This is important. The Phillies appear destined to move Joe Blanton, so it’s important to realize that, if this happens, Lee is essentially replacing Blanton, not the five-starter Kendrick. With that, we have a 9.05 WAR for 2011.
So, their improvement from the scenario where they didn’t sign Lee is about 5 wins. That’s a pretty significant change – but then you’d expect that when you sign a player like Lee. But the difference between this year and last year isn’t as significant – we’re talking about 2.5 or 3 wins – because you’ve both lost Werth and then moved out your number four starter (not the five starter) with Cliff Lee. If they are able to or decide to keep Blanton, the gain in value is more significant.
They won 97 games last season, so with the 3 win upgrade they can probably get to 100 in 2011. Perhaps not the huge difference some may have expected. But there are other things to consider here, too. The Phillies lineup is aging, and Ryan Howard isn’t the player he once was. He’s regressing a lot faster than people expected if 2010 was any indication. Also, I see them having significant struggles versus left-handed pitching next season.
But - and a huge but is coming - if Lee makes them better and they get into the playoffs, which he almost certainly will, this move becomes more significant. Come October, Kendrick takes a seat and they go with Halladay, Lee, Oswalt and Hamels, and we Giants fans certainly know how far a dominant rotation can take you in October.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Is the Phillies’ rotation the best ever? Part II
So, in good fun and with respect, Geoff and I have continued to disagree on this subject. For the record, I enjoy Geoff’s blog and have been having a wildly good time of it. I suppose I even got a beat writer to read my blog, which can’t hurt.
I’ll start by saying that, while FIP is an excellent predictor of future performance and future ERA, it doesn’t exactly tell us what happened. Now if we take the FIP’s Geoff gave us on Twitter, i.e. the ’10 FIP’s of the Phillies 2011 top-4 and the top-4 of the ’97 Braves, we get the following: Braves – Greg Maddux (2.43), John Smoltz (3.04) Denny Neagle (3.34) and Tom Glavine (3.96), and the Phillies – Cliff Lee (2.58), Roy Halladay (3.01) Roy Oswalt (3.13) and Cole Hamels (3.67). If we average them, the hypothetical 2011 Phillies rotation has them beat by just .095 or close to a wash. Please note, however, that Tom Glavine beat his FIP sizably in basically each of his peak years. Because of this, despite pitching several seasons in which his skills eroded at the end of his career, his career ERA is still 41 points lower than his FIP.
Why don’t we attack this question in another way, using Wins Above Replacement (WAR) this time? It’s very difficult to know exactly how much better the AL is than the NL now, though it’s probably significant. It’s going to be next to impossible to know how much more difficult it is to pitch in the current AL than the NL of the 90s. So comparing the two rotations in a variety of ways is probably our best bet.
In 1997, the rotation of Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz and Neagle posted WAR of 7.3, 5, 4.5 and 4.1 for a total WAR of 20.9. If we take the WAR of the 2011 Phillies, and use their 2010 WAR for Halladay, Lee, Hamels and Oswalt, we get 6.9, 4.3, 4.7 and 5.3 for a total of 21.2, a surplus of .3 wins – or a wash.
Let’s try it another way; let’s compare each pitcher’s very best seasons and add those up. Halladay’s best season came in 2003 when he posted a 7.3 and won the Cy Young. Lee’s came in 2008 when he threw down a 7.3 and won the Cy Young. Oswalt’s came in 2002 and his best WAR was 6.2. Finally, Hamels’ WAR of 4.7 in 2010 was his career best. In 2011, Hamels will be one year removed from his best WAR, Oswalt (9), Halladay (8) and Lee (3). That’s twenty one (21) total years removed. Also, Hamels will be the only pitcher still in his prime at 27, while Oswalt (33), Lee (32) and Halladay (34) will not be.
In 1997, Maddux was two years removed from his best season by WAR (8.8), which came in 1995. Glavine was six years removed from his 1991 Cy Young season with a 7.4 WAR. Neagle was just one year removed from his 1996 best WAR of 5.1, and so was Smoltz with his 6.1 1996 WAR. All totaled, the 1997 Braves’ rotation was a total of ten (10) years removed from their very best seasons, i.e. their peaks, and likely three of the four men will someday enter Cooperstown. Age-wise, Maddux and Glavine were each 31, and Smoltz was 30 while Neagle was 28.
If we add their career best WAR, we find that the Braves’ rotation has the edge here with a 27.4, the 2011 Phillies rotation with an excellent 25.7. The Braves’ rotation was also 1.5 years younger.
What many people believe is that Lee’s numbers might jump when he’s given a full season in the National League. Will they? It’s tough to say. But we do know this: in 2009, Cliff Lee threw 80 innings in the NL for the Phillies and his ERA+ was 124. Over the rest of his season in Cleveland, his ERA+ was 135. While Lee was pitching in Cleveland, he was in the AL, but not the AL East where the greatest teams reside.
Roy Halladay, on the other hand, had pitched his entire career in the AL East. One would expect a large increase given all that thump and then going to the lowly NL, right? His ERA+ in the AL East in 2009 was 159. When he went to the NL and won his unanimous Cy Young award, it was 165, or an increase of just under 4%.
Look, the 2011 Phillies have a wonderful shot at dethroning the 1997 Braves, the rotation that landed on Bill James’ list of the best 32 rotations of all time. But it won’t be easy, and it’s far from a forgone conclusion. The question really is, will they or won’t they (exceed the ’97 Braves in brilliance, which is our standard). It’s a wonderful question to ask, ponder and try to answer. Unfortunately, we can’t answer it; that’s up to the players. But when I hear people speculate that this is the most likely outcome, it sort of makes me cringe. I sort of think the incumbent deserves the edge, seeing as how, you know, they’ve already done it. Just a little more respect, that’s all. Call me when the Phillies trade for Zack Greinke.
Stats come from Baseball-reference
I’ll start by saying that, while FIP is an excellent predictor of future performance and future ERA, it doesn’t exactly tell us what happened. Now if we take the FIP’s Geoff gave us on Twitter, i.e. the ’10 FIP’s of the Phillies 2011 top-4 and the top-4 of the ’97 Braves, we get the following: Braves – Greg Maddux (2.43), John Smoltz (3.04) Denny Neagle (3.34) and Tom Glavine (3.96), and the Phillies – Cliff Lee (2.58), Roy Halladay (3.01) Roy Oswalt (3.13) and Cole Hamels (3.67). If we average them, the hypothetical 2011 Phillies rotation has them beat by just .095 or close to a wash. Please note, however, that Tom Glavine beat his FIP sizably in basically each of his peak years. Because of this, despite pitching several seasons in which his skills eroded at the end of his career, his career ERA is still 41 points lower than his FIP.
Why don’t we attack this question in another way, using Wins Above Replacement (WAR) this time? It’s very difficult to know exactly how much better the AL is than the NL now, though it’s probably significant. It’s going to be next to impossible to know how much more difficult it is to pitch in the current AL than the NL of the 90s. So comparing the two rotations in a variety of ways is probably our best bet.
In 1997, the rotation of Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz and Neagle posted WAR of 7.3, 5, 4.5 and 4.1 for a total WAR of 20.9. If we take the WAR of the 2011 Phillies, and use their 2010 WAR for Halladay, Lee, Hamels and Oswalt, we get 6.9, 4.3, 4.7 and 5.3 for a total of 21.2, a surplus of .3 wins – or a wash.
Let’s try it another way; let’s compare each pitcher’s very best seasons and add those up. Halladay’s best season came in 2003 when he posted a 7.3 and won the Cy Young. Lee’s came in 2008 when he threw down a 7.3 and won the Cy Young. Oswalt’s came in 2002 and his best WAR was 6.2. Finally, Hamels’ WAR of 4.7 in 2010 was his career best. In 2011, Hamels will be one year removed from his best WAR, Oswalt (9), Halladay (8) and Lee (3). That’s twenty one (21) total years removed. Also, Hamels will be the only pitcher still in his prime at 27, while Oswalt (33), Lee (32) and Halladay (34) will not be.
In 1997, Maddux was two years removed from his best season by WAR (8.8), which came in 1995. Glavine was six years removed from his 1991 Cy Young season with a 7.4 WAR. Neagle was just one year removed from his 1996 best WAR of 5.1, and so was Smoltz with his 6.1 1996 WAR. All totaled, the 1997 Braves’ rotation was a total of ten (10) years removed from their very best seasons, i.e. their peaks, and likely three of the four men will someday enter Cooperstown. Age-wise, Maddux and Glavine were each 31, and Smoltz was 30 while Neagle was 28.
If we add their career best WAR, we find that the Braves’ rotation has the edge here with a 27.4, the 2011 Phillies rotation with an excellent 25.7. The Braves’ rotation was also 1.5 years younger.
What many people believe is that Lee’s numbers might jump when he’s given a full season in the National League. Will they? It’s tough to say. But we do know this: in 2009, Cliff Lee threw 80 innings in the NL for the Phillies and his ERA+ was 124. Over the rest of his season in Cleveland, his ERA+ was 135. While Lee was pitching in Cleveland, he was in the AL, but not the AL East where the greatest teams reside.
Roy Halladay, on the other hand, had pitched his entire career in the AL East. One would expect a large increase given all that thump and then going to the lowly NL, right? His ERA+ in the AL East in 2009 was 159. When he went to the NL and won his unanimous Cy Young award, it was 165, or an increase of just under 4%.
Look, the 2011 Phillies have a wonderful shot at dethroning the 1997 Braves, the rotation that landed on Bill James’ list of the best 32 rotations of all time. But it won’t be easy, and it’s far from a forgone conclusion. The question really is, will they or won’t they (exceed the ’97 Braves in brilliance, which is our standard). It’s a wonderful question to ask, ponder and try to answer. Unfortunately, we can’t answer it; that’s up to the players. But when I hear people speculate that this is the most likely outcome, it sort of makes me cringe. I sort of think the incumbent deserves the edge, seeing as how, you know, they’ve already done it. Just a little more respect, that’s all. Call me when the Phillies trade for Zack Greinke.
Stats come from Baseball-reference
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Is the Phillies’ rotation the best ever?
Last night as everyone caught their collective breath and gathered themselves, as if a boxer pulling himself up by the ropes, following the Phillies’ – AKA the “Mystery Team” – signing of Cliff Lee, wild statements on Twitter began to be strewn about. One such statement was made by the brilliant Mariners blogger of the Seattle Times, Geoff Baker. Geoff simply said: “For those comparing the Phils to the 1990s Braves rotation-wise: Halladay and Lee have both won Cy Young’s in the AL. Tougher hitters faced.” Somehow, my next post was born.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and much of what he quipped is right. I mean, sure, the AL is the better of the two leagues. That’s obvious. I directly replied to him saying: “Except the AL dominance doesn’t date back to when THAT Braves rotation existed.” Why? Because, what I think he was trying to say, is that the combo of Lee and Halladay was – in his mind – somehow automatically superior to Maddux and Glavine, to Maddux and Smoltz, and to the Braves’ rotations of the mid-90s without even so much as a single pitch thrown. He then replied to my statement about the NL’s inferiority not dating back to the Braves’ hay-day, saying: “Sure it does. From 1992-2000, [the] AL won 6 of 8 WS [World Series’]. Just before, you had LaRussa’s A’s. Halladay and Lee don’t rely on K’s a foot off [the] plate.” And a couple hours later he was posting on it here, confirming what I believed to be his stance.
I don’t know how we really got here, or even that we were arguing – or agreeing to disagree – about the same thing. But anyway, I’ll use this space to disagree with him because I not only think he’s wrong, but that it’s so premature to anoint a rotation the “Greatest Ever,” that it’s preposterous. As great as the Halladay-Lee-Oswalt-Hamels rotation looks to be in 2011, the Gold Standard is still the Braves of the mid-90s and it won’t be easy for any rotation to ever equal it, let alone exceed it.
He did as much to provide two links to support his argument within his blog. One from the hardball times, which he hyperlinked with the words: “by the 1990s, the AL was clearly the better league.” Unfortunately, if you read it carefully you’ll find that it completely contradicts his statement. It says, within it: “The salient theme of 1993-2003 is that if it weren't for the DH* -- a major caveat, to be sure -- there would be no significant points of difference between the American and National Leagues. They present products of similar style and quality in similar venues, and are similarly popular.” It does appear Steve agrees with me, despite Geoff’s attempts to use it in order to prove the contrary – which, by the way, I don’t mean to say he was posting in directly reply to me. In all likelihood, he was not.
*It’s true that the AL has the DH, and both Halladay and Lee should get credit for that. That alone accounts for a decent portion of the difference in ERA between leagues.
That’s my first piece of evidence to dispute the claim that the AL was superior in the mid-90s. Also, there’s this. Between 1992 and 2003, the NL won 889 games versus 871 for the AL, and this includes both interleague play and the World Series. If you don’t wish to include the 2000’s, you’ll find that from 1992-2000, the NL won 482 games to the 478 the AL won, again including interleague and the World Series. True American League dominance didn’t begin until 2004, when, over the last seven seasons the AL has dominated in interleague play. I think these are much more representative samples of the quality of each league.
Geoff also said: “If you don’t like the WS samples…” – and I don’t – “…check out ASG [All-star Game] results or ERA inflation for crossover pitchers.” Ok. The AL has dominated the ASG for a number of years, to be sure. They went 12-0-1 from 1997 to 2009. But the NL won in each of 1994, 1995 and 1996, while the AL won the two prior. So, my point was never that the AL isn’t dominant now, it is; it was that it wasn’t dominant then. Moreover, the All-star teams are selected by the fans, rendering it a ridiculous popularity contest. And, the All-star games of the mid-90s simply don’t support his notion. How about in terms of the ERA inflation of crossover pitchers? I won’t dispute that. I alluded earlier to the fact that the presence of the DH automatically adds to this phenomenon, and that it’s happened more so in recent years is irrelevant. The AL is more dominant now, a point on which most everyone can agree.
If you have a good feeling that the AL dominance does not date back to the mid-90s, you’re ready to move on.
But, there’s good news. There’s a nifty little statistic called ERA+ that might help us settle this regardless of whether or not you believe the AL was a force in 1995. It does this: ERA+ adjusts a pitcher’s earned run average (ERA) according to the pitcher’s ballpark, and the ERA of the pitcher’s league. Average ERA+ is set at 100. Anything above that is obviously above average, and everything below that is obviously below average. So what does this mean? Well, it allows us to compare pitchers more easily by determining how much better they were than their peers in a given season. It even gives us a decent way to compare pitchers from varying decades. It does this regardless of whether or not they played in a great pitcher’s park or a terrible one, a weaker league or the more talented one.
Let’s start with Cliff Lee. Over his last three seasons, in which he was 29-31 and in his prime, his ERA+ stands at 142. That’s roughly 42% better than the other starters, and plenty good enough to land you in the Hall of Fame if you do it for a sustained period of time. Over that same period, Roy Halladay has a 158 ERA+. Again, absolutely fantastic, elite stuff. Those were his age 31-33 seasons, very much in his prime and possibly at the tail end of it. Roy Oswalt, another vaunted arm in the Phillies’ rotation, has a 119 over that period. He’ll be 33 next season and, like Halladay and Lee, is no spring chicken. Finally, the Phillies' starter with the best chance to improve is Cole Hamels. He has a 122 over his past three campaigns but has room to improve in 2011, his 27 year old season. If we take a crude average, and assume these four studs have seasons in 2011 that are on par with their previous three – this is probably optimistic – their combined ERA+ will be 135. That is indeed excellent.
How does that compare to some of the Braves rotations? Let’s find out. In 1993, a very young rotation of Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine and Steve Avery posted an ERA+ of 137. Again, I used a crude average by not weighting their innings. In strike-shortened 1994, a group of the very same men posted a 146. It certainly helped being anchored by Greg Maddux who finished with a remarkable 271. In 1995, they posted a 157, again behind the ballast that was Maddux – he had a 262 in that season. He sure was good. After all, he won four consecutive Cy Young awards starting in 1992 with the Cubs before winning three more with Atlanta.
We can also take a look at 1996-1998. Those same gentleman who pitched so brilliantly in ’93, ’94 and ‘95 threw down a 139 in 1996. In ’97, Denny Neagle slipped in in place of Avery; they had a 152 ERA+. And finally, in 1998, pulling the ERA+’s of their top-five, which included Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Neagle and now a young Kevin Millwood, the Braves’ ERA+ was a robust 144. Smoltz and Glavine were pretty good, too. Smoltz won the Cy Young in 1996 and Glavine in 1998.
That’s six consecutive seasons with a combined ERA+ better than that of our projected, and probably generous, 2011 Philadelphia Phillies rotation. Their rotation stands to be phenomenal. It will probably be the very best in either league, even surpassing the brilliant rotation the Giants enjoy. Heck, it might even be historical.
But, instead of paring back our exuberance over the Braves’ behemoth, we should actually do so with these Phillies. Take a moment to take a closer look at what the Braves were able to accomplish between the sixty feet, six inches from the rubber to the plate over that period - this is something that has already happened, the dust has settled, the stats are written - and pay especially close attention to "Mad Dog," or "The Professor" if you prefer. For he's the primary reason it’s premature to give the edge – over a historically great staff – to a rotation that’s yet to throw a single pitch together.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and much of what he quipped is right. I mean, sure, the AL is the better of the two leagues. That’s obvious. I directly replied to him saying: “Except the AL dominance doesn’t date back to when THAT Braves rotation existed.” Why? Because, what I think he was trying to say, is that the combo of Lee and Halladay was – in his mind – somehow automatically superior to Maddux and Glavine, to Maddux and Smoltz, and to the Braves’ rotations of the mid-90s without even so much as a single pitch thrown. He then replied to my statement about the NL’s inferiority not dating back to the Braves’ hay-day, saying: “Sure it does. From 1992-2000, [the] AL won 6 of 8 WS [World Series’]. Just before, you had LaRussa’s A’s. Halladay and Lee don’t rely on K’s a foot off [the] plate.” And a couple hours later he was posting on it here, confirming what I believed to be his stance.
I don’t know how we really got here, or even that we were arguing – or agreeing to disagree – about the same thing. But anyway, I’ll use this space to disagree with him because I not only think he’s wrong, but that it’s so premature to anoint a rotation the “Greatest Ever,” that it’s preposterous. As great as the Halladay-Lee-Oswalt-Hamels rotation looks to be in 2011, the Gold Standard is still the Braves of the mid-90s and it won’t be easy for any rotation to ever equal it, let alone exceed it.
He did as much to provide two links to support his argument within his blog. One from the hardball times, which he hyperlinked with the words: “by the 1990s, the AL was clearly the better league.” Unfortunately, if you read it carefully you’ll find that it completely contradicts his statement. It says, within it: “The salient theme of 1993-2003 is that if it weren't for the DH* -- a major caveat, to be sure -- there would be no significant points of difference between the American and National Leagues. They present products of similar style and quality in similar venues, and are similarly popular.” It does appear Steve agrees with me, despite Geoff’s attempts to use it in order to prove the contrary – which, by the way, I don’t mean to say he was posting in directly reply to me. In all likelihood, he was not.
*It’s true that the AL has the DH, and both Halladay and Lee should get credit for that. That alone accounts for a decent portion of the difference in ERA between leagues.
That’s my first piece of evidence to dispute the claim that the AL was superior in the mid-90s. Also, there’s this. Between 1992 and 2003, the NL won 889 games versus 871 for the AL, and this includes both interleague play and the World Series. If you don’t wish to include the 2000’s, you’ll find that from 1992-2000, the NL won 482 games to the 478 the AL won, again including interleague and the World Series. True American League dominance didn’t begin until 2004, when, over the last seven seasons the AL has dominated in interleague play. I think these are much more representative samples of the quality of each league.
Geoff also said: “If you don’t like the WS samples…” – and I don’t – “…check out ASG [All-star Game] results or ERA inflation for crossover pitchers.” Ok. The AL has dominated the ASG for a number of years, to be sure. They went 12-0-1 from 1997 to 2009. But the NL won in each of 1994, 1995 and 1996, while the AL won the two prior. So, my point was never that the AL isn’t dominant now, it is; it was that it wasn’t dominant then. Moreover, the All-star teams are selected by the fans, rendering it a ridiculous popularity contest. And, the All-star games of the mid-90s simply don’t support his notion. How about in terms of the ERA inflation of crossover pitchers? I won’t dispute that. I alluded earlier to the fact that the presence of the DH automatically adds to this phenomenon, and that it’s happened more so in recent years is irrelevant. The AL is more dominant now, a point on which most everyone can agree.
If you have a good feeling that the AL dominance does not date back to the mid-90s, you’re ready to move on.
But, there’s good news. There’s a nifty little statistic called ERA+ that might help us settle this regardless of whether or not you believe the AL was a force in 1995. It does this: ERA+ adjusts a pitcher’s earned run average (ERA) according to the pitcher’s ballpark, and the ERA of the pitcher’s league. Average ERA+ is set at 100. Anything above that is obviously above average, and everything below that is obviously below average. So what does this mean? Well, it allows us to compare pitchers more easily by determining how much better they were than their peers in a given season. It even gives us a decent way to compare pitchers from varying decades. It does this regardless of whether or not they played in a great pitcher’s park or a terrible one, a weaker league or the more talented one.
Let’s start with Cliff Lee. Over his last three seasons, in which he was 29-31 and in his prime, his ERA+ stands at 142. That’s roughly 42% better than the other starters, and plenty good enough to land you in the Hall of Fame if you do it for a sustained period of time. Over that same period, Roy Halladay has a 158 ERA+. Again, absolutely fantastic, elite stuff. Those were his age 31-33 seasons, very much in his prime and possibly at the tail end of it. Roy Oswalt, another vaunted arm in the Phillies’ rotation, has a 119 over that period. He’ll be 33 next season and, like Halladay and Lee, is no spring chicken. Finally, the Phillies' starter with the best chance to improve is Cole Hamels. He has a 122 over his past three campaigns but has room to improve in 2011, his 27 year old season. If we take a crude average, and assume these four studs have seasons in 2011 that are on par with their previous three – this is probably optimistic – their combined ERA+ will be 135. That is indeed excellent.
How does that compare to some of the Braves rotations? Let’s find out. In 1993, a very young rotation of Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine and Steve Avery posted an ERA+ of 137. Again, I used a crude average by not weighting their innings. In strike-shortened 1994, a group of the very same men posted a 146. It certainly helped being anchored by Greg Maddux who finished with a remarkable 271. In 1995, they posted a 157, again behind the ballast that was Maddux – he had a 262 in that season. He sure was good. After all, he won four consecutive Cy Young awards starting in 1992 with the Cubs before winning three more with Atlanta.
We can also take a look at 1996-1998. Those same gentleman who pitched so brilliantly in ’93, ’94 and ‘95 threw down a 139 in 1996. In ’97, Denny Neagle slipped in in place of Avery; they had a 152 ERA+. And finally, in 1998, pulling the ERA+’s of their top-five, which included Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Neagle and now a young Kevin Millwood, the Braves’ ERA+ was a robust 144. Smoltz and Glavine were pretty good, too. Smoltz won the Cy Young in 1996 and Glavine in 1998.
That’s six consecutive seasons with a combined ERA+ better than that of our projected, and probably generous, 2011 Philadelphia Phillies rotation. Their rotation stands to be phenomenal. It will probably be the very best in either league, even surpassing the brilliant rotation the Giants enjoy. Heck, it might even be historical.
But, instead of paring back our exuberance over the Braves’ behemoth, we should actually do so with these Phillies. Take a moment to take a closer look at what the Braves were able to accomplish between the sixty feet, six inches from the rubber to the plate over that period - this is something that has already happened, the dust has settled, the stats are written - and pay especially close attention to "Mad Dog," or "The Professor" if you prefer. For he's the primary reason it’s premature to give the edge – over a historically great staff – to a rotation that’s yet to throw a single pitch together.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Did Lincecum camp bait Giants?
They did exchange figures today and Lincecum is requesting the more reasonable sum of $13 mil and the Giants have requested that $8 mil be their Ace’s 2010 salary. The wide belief among FanGraph’s voters yesterday was that Lincecum would submit a $14-15 mil salary. And just yesterday, I surmised that both Lincecum and the Giants would both submit numbers between $12 mil and $16 mil. I was right about Tim and wrong about the Giants. My first thoughts were: “The Giants lowballed Tim and he’s going to win easily.” This was my gut reaction.
After a while I began to believe that neither the figure Lincecum requested nor that of the Giants is that outlandish. You can make an argument for both. I must admit that I was somewhat armed with the knowledge that 1st year arbitration players usually receive about 40% of their free agent market value having read Jack Moore's post on FanGraphs. So, you could probably hypothesize Lincecum would make at least $18 mil were he a free agent. I’d argue he would command a salary more like that of C.C. Sabbathia who is getting $23 mil a year from the Bronx Bombers. If that were the case, 40% of his market value would be $9.2 mil. If his value were $18 mil, we get $7.2. So, if the 40% estimate holds true the Giants have a decent case and may well win during the arbitration hearing. Then again, they may not.
Why? Before the 2008 season Ryan Howard filed for a record $10 mil while the Phillies countered with $7 mil. Howard had a Rookie of the Year and MVP trophy under his belt and won his arbitration case. One has to ask the question. Which is more valuable? A RoY and MVP or back to back Cy Young’s? I have to believe the Cy Young’s are because one Cy Young is certainly more valuable than one RoY and Lincecum proved to be the most dominant pitcher in the NL (and arguably in all of baseball) in back to back years. Furthermore, Lincecum has performed so incredibly on a quite poor 2008 team and a decent while not dominant 2009 team whereas Howard’s teammates afford him a clearer way to pad his stats. For example, were it not for the Chase Utley constantly being on base in front of Howard he most certainly would not be racking up those extraordinary RBI numbers. The RBI, of course, being one of the main stats baseball traditionalists have sunk their claws into and are hanging on for dear life. Lastly, while there are a handful of slugging first baseman (not even counting the rest of the position players) in Pujols, Fielder, Gonzalez and Howard, it certainly seems to me there are fewer Tim Lincecum’s to go around and you’d probably have to pull them from both the AL and NL to come up with a list longer than one you can count on one hand. Lincecum is one of a kind in many cases, and performance wise, much more so than Howard.
I’ve developed somewhat of a theory (albeit probably a completely unverifiable one) on the psychology behind each of their (Tim’s and the Giants’) picks. First of all, I wondered why right off the bat the Giants would choose such a seemingly low number. $8 mil? Really? Had they not learned from the Howard case that such a lower number would certainly lose them their case? I then had this idea. Because there had been chatter that Lincecum might file a number as high as $23 mil, perhaps the Giants truly believed he would. And if he had the $8 mil would seem so much more reasonable than $20 mil. I assure you that the arbiter would choose $8 mil over $20 mil and it wouldn’t take him more than a moment to make a decision. I think it’s possible that the Lincecum camp baited the Giants into low balling their Ace so that they could file a record salary and win. Afterall, $13 mil would be the record setting salary for a 1st year eligible player in arbitration by 30% and I am sure Tim would be more than happy with it. And this is exactly what I believe will happen unless one of two things happen. 1) The Giants and Lincecum settle at a middle figure before the hearing or 2) now that they’ve exchanged figures they hammer out a long-term deal. What’s crazy in all this and worth noting, however, is that had the Giants waited just 2 weeks longer to promote Lincecum in 2007 they could have postponed his arbitration until next year. Which makes me wonder, who holds the record salary for a 1st year eligible super two? If anyone knows, give me the goods.
Check here for a list of all the figures players and teams exchanged today, including Brian Wilson ($4.85 mil vs. $4 mil)
UPDATE:
I guess Keith Law agress that Lincecum will win this case. In fact, he believes they underfiled and probably finds the Giants' request of $8 mil ludicrous.
Keith Law
Lincecum's camp is making a mistake
"I'd like to see the arbitration brief that argues that Lincecum, a first-time-eligible, super-two free agent with two Cy Young Awards, should be paid less than Ryan Howard was as a first-time-eligible free agent with one MVP award. Not just less -- $2 million less. If anything, Lincecum's agents underfiled; his case was unprecedented and a number of $15-18 million would have been defensible." ESPN.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)