Rotation building - top down or bottom up?
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 13, 2008 9:51 PM EDT
66 comments
In todays entry, Dan hit on methods for building rotations. He highlighted Tampa's strength at the bottom, their depth of the rotation, and indicated that signs show this may be what the Cardinals are planning as well. I've been of the opinion that getting guys in the 4 and 5 spot that can exceed 100 ERA+ is more important, or at least a better risk investment, than trying to find guys at the top of the rotation that can exceed 130 ERA+. There are a number of reasons I feel this, but in this post I just want to illustrate what I believe is probably the most important reason. Projecting out pitching performance is difficult. It's difficult to do looking ahead 1 or 2 years, and it's darn near impossible looking ahead 3 or 4. I ran some numbers in B-Ref that show just how hard it can be and will post the results here.
What I have done is look through the results year by year, and marked any pitcher that made at least 15 starts in a season and posted an ERA+ of 115 or greater. Then I looked at those same players results and counted how many times in the 4 following years they were able to maintain that level (posted something 115 or greater). I tracked everything from 2002 to present, so we have a full 4 year history after the 2002, 2003, & 2004 seasons.
2002 - 47 starters had an ERA+ of 115 or better that season. 2 (or 4.3%) pitched at that level for all 4 of the following years (2003-2006). Only 3 (6.4%) were able to post something better than 115 in 3 of the 4 following seasons. There were 8 (17%) that did it for 2 seasons, 16 (34%) that could do it for 1 season, and 18 (38.3%) that could not do it any of the 4.
2003 - 32 starters were at 115 or above. 4 (12.5%) pitched that that level or above all 4 seasons. 2 (6.3%) did it for 3 of the 4 seasons, 5 (15.6%) did it for 2, 9 (28.1%) did it one season, and 12 (37.5) did not pitch above 115 any of the 4 seasons.
2004 - 44 pitchers qualified. 6 (13.6%) pitched at that level all 4 years. 3 (6.8%) did it in 3 of the seasons, 5 (11.4%) did it in 2 of them, 9 (20.5%) did it in 1, and 21 (47.7%) never did it again in any of the 4.
So we have 3 years worth of data there. Just based off that, it appears that locking in on deals with the top caliber of pitchers, the #1's and #2's, is a very risky proposition. ERA+ of 115 is nothing earthshattering, but it does represent performance around the top quarter.
It appears that if you take a starter that is a top performer now and give them a 4 year deal, you have about a 10% chance of getting top of the rotation performance (a # 1 or solid #2) all 4 years. You have about another 20% chance that he'll be able to do it for you for either 2 or 3 years. You have almost a 30% chance he can do it for only 1 season, and over a 40% chance he will not pitch at that level for you at all.
This is why I believe the better (both in terms of risk and reward) investment is to bolster the bottom half the rotation. Generally speaking, the greatest value in pitching lies in stockpiling pitchers that you project to pitch in the ERA+ range of 95-110, with a focus on keeping deals short term (Lohse - a topic for another day) and also on building depth for handling the injuries that will surely come. Giving top of the rotation money for 4 years plus is a risky proposition. You are investing for a level of consistency that the vast majority simply cannot provide.
6 recs |
66 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Makes sense:
Consider perennial cheap-o contenders like Minnesota, South Side Chi, St. Louis, who’ve all had success with a few good pitchers, but mostly with dozens of decent pitchers.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Oct 13, 2008 10:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
South Side Chi
They tend to bolster their rotation via trades.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Oct 14, 2008 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
But they do seem to cut the cord on guys at the right time. See Garland, Jon and McCarthy, Brandon. I thought they got robbed in the trade for Cabrera, but trading Garland allowed them to open up a spot for Danks who was a much better pitcher than Garland was.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cost - trades
They cut ties with Garland when his salary got up to $10M, and McCarthy still had “upside”. They traded Freddie Garcia for Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez – who they flipped for Nick Swisher. Floyd helped make Garland expendable. And they got Danks by trading McCarthy. working out pretty good for Kenny up there.
by Knighttime on Oct 14, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Were you debating me?
Or agreeing with me?
I didn’t give a lot of specific examples like you did, but I think we’re saying the same thing…looking at the guys they moved in your example, all of them had a statistically worse year the next season or were out of baseball within the next 18 months except McCarthy, and he really hasn’t worked out for Texas either. I bet they’d much rather have Danks back — think of the possible rotation in Texas if they’d simply stop TRADING PEOPLE!
Chris Young
John Danks
Edinson Volquez
Vincente Padilla
Kevin Millwood
Not to mention they’d still have Texiera and Adrian Gonzalez to go along with Murphy, Kinsler, and Laird. That’s a division contending team if I’ve never seen one. Perhaps the Rangers should try the Devil Rays strategy of draft and hold for a few years….
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree
I certainly agree. I like what the Sox have done to try and keep their pitching costs down, while still fielding a quality rotation. As well the parts they moved seemed like they moved than at the right time. Buehrle at $14M, Vasquez at $11.5M, and Contreras at $10M are costly – while developing Danks, Floyd, and Clayton Richard gives them some measure of cost control.
Maybe makes you think the Cards waited 2 yrs too long to move Anthony Reyes (and C Duncan for that matter).
I anticapate the Sox will try to move Vasquez this winter, probably for some more young starters for their stable. (FYI I’ve never verbalized it, but in my mind I tried to figure out if a Pinerio/Kennedy/Freese for Vasquez deal would be a good one. Sox are in the market for a 3B, 2B and CF and it appears Ozzy hates Vasquez. my thoughts are inconclusive and unlikely)
I also agree with your assesment on the Rangers.
by Knighttime on Oct 14, 2008 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow the one sentence is freaking scary
“you have about a 10% chance of getting top of the rotation performance (a # 1 or solid #2) all 4 years. You have about another 20% chance that he’ll be able to do it for you for either 2 or 3 years”
Looks like Jerry Reinsdorf and his usual refusal to do long term pitcher contracts has it right.
by sdrone on Oct 14, 2008 9:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He has a good point
off the top of my head, I can’t think of any pitchers on long term contracts that haven’t gotten injured at least once.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Oct 14, 2008 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Hampton
He’s been almost completely injury free since he singed that contract with Colorado.
by Gnick on Oct 14, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's right
Just pencil him in for another 20 wins this year. He’s like a Swiss watch.
by siddfynch on Oct 16, 2008 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Economically it makes sense
But you didn’t look up and see how many of your bottom-up pitchers were able to maintain an ERA+ near 100 either. I would venture to say that there are more of them capable of doing this simply because it’s much closer to the league average, but that most of the guys able to maintain this level of consistency over a period of time are probably getting decent contracts as well — think Kyle Lohse, Carlos Silva, and Jason Marquis to name a few.
Could it be that it’s nearly impossible to predict how a pitcher is going to do from year to year because of the number of factors that go into it (injury, team defense, strength of schedule, etc.) and the fact that very few are able to maintain a certain level of performance from year to year? If that’s the case, I think that your data supports the position that overpaying for one really good starter on a 3-4 year contract may be the way to go. Even if he’s not great he’s still probably going to be a pretty good pitcher over the length of that deal, unless he gets injured, and injuries could happen to any pitcher regardless of how good they are.
I’m of a similar opinion that you shouldn’t sign pitchers to contracts longer than 4 years and that the best way to handle pitching contracts would be on a year to year basis. But that simply isn’t possible — players want some sort of financial security and a series of one year deals isn’t going to give that to them, so you have to find a happy medium.
I think this data shows why there is such a premium paid for #1 starters — there just aren’t very many of them out there.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 9:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
100+
I imagine they aren’t able to hold that value 4 years either. I had the same thought you did, and would like to see what the data shows too. However, it may not be necessary if you believe that you can find 100 types for 1 or 2 year deals. Now we just went and signed Lohse for 4, so this blows my theory out of the water, but I think you can get these types for 2 year commitments, generally speaking. Maybe you are right though….maybe we didn’t really overextend with Lohse and this is just the new market – four years no matter what. I hope not. If so, even more incentive to trust your prospects then.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
If so, even more incentive to trust your prospects then.
And much more incentive to stockpile young pitching assets like Oakland has done over the past decade. The Swisher and Haren deals netted them 6 pitching prospects, including two top prospects. Then they just move Duchscherer into the rotation and get 200 above average innings from him.
if you believe that you can find 100 types for 1 or 2 year deals.
I think those days are long gone, unless those pitchers are over the age of 34, at which point very few of them are going to have value anyway.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Qualities of the 10%
What would you consider to be objective qualities that the 10% worth of successes possess?
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Oct 14, 2008 9:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I betchya that we could probably name them in 10 or 20 comments if we tried
I would think that they’d be our hall of fame starters.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Oct 14, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true
I was thinking about physique, repertoire, age, etc. so that we could gauge what type of qualities the successful multi-year deal pitchers have.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Oct 14, 2008 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting point for further investigation
I would be interested in looking at the same data, but looking at how the pitchers who strung together 2 years in a row did with an ERA+ of 115 or better. In other words, if you do it two years in a row, what are your 4 year prospects? Further, what percentage failed to achieve because of injury rather than performance?
From a strictly economic perspective, the price of “average” pitchers, of which I believe Kyle Loshe to be one, is going up and up. Given his lack of injury history (which I think is a bogus generality, it only takes one bad pitch to get injured), his stock went up. I think the Cardinals looked at their own budget, figured they couldn’t make a run at Sabbathia or even Lowe because of $ concerns, figured they already have an ace in Wainwright, Welly is solid as a 3 (which gives us 2 3’s), and can mix and match Pineiro, Boggs, Todd, Mortenson, and possibly a free agent to find a stable rotation. One of the AAA guys is going to be the number 5 starter next year, almost certainly.
by ckeiner on Oct 14, 2008 10:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
115 ERA+ isn't the best choice IMO
115 means that Todd Wellemeyer falls into the that category after this year’s performance. I know that he was outstanding this year, but I really don’t think that most of us would consider him a top of the rotation starter going forward.
A better choice I think would be to look at an ERA+ of say, 125. Then you could see who maintained that over the next 4 years. OR, you could initially look at 130, then see who never had a season under 120 the next 4 years. That should allow for a better margin of error. Furthermore, I think that expecting any pitcher to be healthy and effective 4 years straight is asking too much these days. Good post, Merry CRasmus.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 14, 2008 10:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
But all of those other things are subsets of the original set
by the time you get to 130 or 125, you’d be looking at maybe five or six guys a year. At that point, the vaguaries of the guys involved dominate any patterns you can see—how much did Johan Santana moving to the NL East and Shea affect his ERA+ (and I still do believe that you can adjust for park effects, but you can’t eliminate them)? Should Roger Clemens be included in the dataset, or are the steroid accusations too damaging?
It’d still be a worthwhile analysis to do, but it woudl be totally different than this one.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Oct 14, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but I'm saying
that looking at the percentage values for true top-flight starters as an individual group would probably indicate a higher sustainability level than if you throw in all the guys like Wellemeyer. I just don’t think that saying that a top of the rotation starter only has a 10% chance of being a 1-2 type starter over the next 4 years is fair when you are throwing in pitchers who are likely having career years.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 14, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Statistically speaking
it would be better to take as large a sample as possible that still has the metric you’re looking for, which is what the OP did in this case. The fact that Wellemeyer falls into that category pretty well makes his point: Yes, he did have one season of 115 ERA+ or better, but how likely is it that he repeats that performance next year or anytime over the next three years? From this data set it seems pretty unlikely, unless he’s one of those top-ten-percenters that were talking about here. In that case, he’s going to get a whole lot more expensive after next season.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forgot to add this
That makes the signing of Kyle Lohse all that more scary, because his 2008 could very well be the outlier of “career year” and he may fall back to where he was in the previous three seasons before coming to St. Louis. At which point we’re spending $10M a season on a less than league average pitcher.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that Wellemeyer probably
wont post an ERA+ of 115 again. But if the purpose of the study is to argue for bolstering the back end of the rotation with durable guys rather than adding to the front end, I have to disagree with the way the numbers were derived. No one here (I assume) would argue that Welley is a 1-2 type, yet it is the players like him who make the true ace type starters look less durable in this study. That’ why I thought it might be more accurate with a smaller sample size (higher ERA+). Just speculating, obviously.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 14, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I pointed this out above
I don’t think that you can derive any information from this data unless you look at all the pitchers with 100 ERA+ and how they do over the course of a 4 year span. If they aren’t any better at repeating their effectiveness then the whole exercise is moot point.
I would venture to say that they are better at repeating performance, simply because a certain number of them have to be above average in a normal distribution. At that point you would have to breakdown average salary based on ERA+ to determine whether paying more is worth it. I’ll take a blind guess and say that it probably is in the grand scheme of things.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but isn't it assumed that 100 ERA+ pitchers are a lot easier to find than 115?
or, wait… normal distribution… maybe you’re smarter than me and i just didn’t get what you are saying.
happens to me a lot actually.
by mattybobo on Oct 14, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, because they're closer to the "league average"
In a normal distribution you should find the highest amount of data points in a set near the average of the entire set. So you should find the highest number of pitchers around the “league average” ERA+, which would be close to 100.
My point was that if those pitchers don’t have a higher rate of repeating their performance (say 20, giving them a 100 improvement factor), then the exercise done by the original poster is moot because they don’t repeat their performance by a large enough factor over the pitchers who have a 115 ERA+ or better to make them more predictable or cost effective.
Further, my guess would be that a pitcher with 115 ERA+ is probably going to have a 50% or better chance to be better than league average in every year in the study, while a pitcher with a 100 ERA+ would have less than a 25% chance of that happening every year in the 4 year period.
So if you pay for the 115 ERA+ guy you’re probably going to get at least league average innings out of him and one to two seasons of top quartile (better than 120 ERA+) performance. If you pay for a 100 ERA+ guy you may get one to two seasons of league averageness out of him, but possibly 2-3 seasons where he gives you #5 starter type of numbers, which would be very close to replacement level.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks, i get what you're saying now
it also just intuitively makes sense to me, now that i think about it, that higher ERA+ guys will have a better “baseline” to fall from, should their performance start to fade. i’d sooner believe a 100 type guy to drop 20 ERA+ and become 80 than for a 120 guy to drop 40 points in the same time frame.
by mattybobo on Oct 14, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your point is correct
that, w/o a comparison to those “back-end pitchers” who are in the 95-110 ERA+ range, it’s difficult to make a determination one way or another. I also agree w/ godfather that 115 seems arbitrarily low is we’re trying to compare top-end pitchers to back-end pitchers. Most major league starters can post an ERA+ of 115 in 1 season based on sheer luck alone. I realize that the sample size would be extremely small if we started w/ 125 or 130, but that’s the point — there aren’t that many of those guys out there.
by chuckb on Oct 14, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most major league starters can post an ERA+ of 115 in 1 season based on sheer luck alone.
But not all of them do, either because they aren’t that good or because they never have a season where they’re unpredictably lucky over a whole year. I think that was kind of the point by the OP though — that an ERA+ of 115 is fairly low for top tier starters, but only 10% of that entire group could replicate that performance over the entire 4 year period. Obviously the percentage of replication would probably go up with a smaller subset of pitchers, because those 10% pitchers are probably going to be the ones posting ERA+ in the 130’s and 140’s.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if Wellemeyer just won't stay around last year's performance
He’s now maintained it for a season and a half, and has displayed a different repitoire than he has the rest of his career (namely, drastically reduced walk rates—look at his K/BB elsewhere versus stl). His performance last year looks more to me like a young player getting his act together than it does like a freak career year. Also, he was never used as a starter before he became a cardinal, so there might be a chance that he just wasn’t suited for relief for whatever reason.
Obviously, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that he’ll have an ERA+ of 115 next season, but then again, I don’t think it’s that absurd to say that he could very well do it. He was once considered to really have a future with the Cubs, if I remember correctly.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Oct 14, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with all of that
But what we’re saying is that he’s probably not one of the 10%ers in that you’d anticipate 2008 being an average year for him.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just ran the same stuff with 125 as the baseline
And I got a total 123 seasons of 125 ERA+ or greater (with 15 starts). The numbers checked out close to the same, but then again I was holding them to a 125 for future seasons as well.
8.4% maintained it for all 4 years
6.4% for 3 seasons
13.9% for 2 seasons
27.2% for 1
44.1% didn’t do it again
I’ll work on your second suggestion a little later on. Will filter out the 130 or better seasons and see how many times they could pitch at 115 or better for the 4 after it.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My formulas weren't linked
my apologies, here’s the correct #’s
79 seasons of 125+,
6.3% did it all 4 years
6.3 % 3 years
12.7% for 2 years
26.6% for 1 year
48.1% didn’t do it again
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can you run one with 100 as the baseline then?
I realize that we’re getting into a much larger data set there…maybe run just the pitchers from 90-105 and see what kind of percentage we’re looking at that are able to replicate an ERA+ no worse than 90.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mulling it over
I may be a little strapped for time later on, but If I have the time I can drop the baseline down to 100. Then we could looking at seasons 100-115 and see how often they pitch at league average or better in the 4 following years.
I really don’t want to go much below 100, because what I am advocating is working to get 4’s and 5’s that are league average or slightly better (100-110).
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One note
By looking at 4 years for league average pitchers, I am making a concession that you’ll need to make 4 year deals to get them too. I am not sure that is really the case, but it would be interesting to see the results either way. Obviously Mo thought we needed to give Lohse 4 years to keep him, so there is a little evidence to support your case.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's a good standard to go by
Since the average contract for free agent pitchers seems to be around 4 years or so.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's the case
And it may be, then I think we should make every effort to be contrarians here and avoid following suit. This is, of course as a general rule. I think you can still find some that slip through the cracks, like Lohse last year, here and there.
If you need to make 4 year commitments then it may be that you need to count on the talent you develop earlier. You may need to take a couple stabs at reclamation projects for depth, possibly a #5.
I think we probably agree on this though….Looking through B-Ref for those that were at 95 or higher now.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitchers between 95 -114
2002-2004…
141 of them
28 (19.9) – pitched at 95 or better all 4 yrs
20 (14.2) – at the level for 3 yrs
24 (17) – at 2 years
24 (17) – 1 yr
45 (31.9) – no other years
I need to note that I am doing this by eyeing B-Ref and plugging into Excel. I noticed, when going over some of this again, that I had missed some pitchers that split time between 2 teams. So there are a few datapoints missing. It’s all intended to be more of a discussion point much moreso than anything else, so I’m not going to clean up the 1 percent or so that needs it. Did want to note it somewhere in here though.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the overall data looks to support your theory then
assuming that you can sign the pitchers in the 95-114 ERA+ for significantly cheaper than you can a 115+ ERA+ pitcher. I still think the best way to go is to get one legitimate #1 starter and pay him accordingly — then go with 2-3 number three type starters behind him and fill out the rest out of your farm system. I think that’s probably ideal. Hopefully you can develop a #1 or #2 out of your own system and have him for 6 cost-controlled seasons — at that point you’re money ahead.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 15, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
On the trying to get a #1 from the farm, sign a couple of #3s, and go with minor leaguers for the back end.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 15, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flat rotation teams
do not do well in the post season. You can build for the regular season with depth, but when it comes down to a 5 game and two 7 game series against the top teams in the league you have to have a 1-2 knock out punch.
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
by rocKStark5 on Oct 14, 2008 11:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree with that point....
But I would say this: If you build a rotation based on one #2, three #3’s, and a #4 you still have a #2 and a #3 for you postseason rotation and a lot of depth to add to the bullpen. Nearly every year, this one included, there are #1 or #2 starters on the market at the trade deadline if you were leading your division and thought that you might need a legit #1 to get you over the hump in the playoffs.
You’d have to weigh the cost/benefit analysis, but I would say that it would probably be cheaper to build bottom up and go after a legit #1 rental via trade when you’re already in contention rather than pay one #1 money for 7 years when you might only compete in 2 of those years.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 14, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking along these lines as well,
but I can’t really decide if it’s true. For instance, Wood/Prior destroyed plenty of hopes and dreams during short series, but they eventually ran into bad luck. Josh Beckett has probably been the best recent example of evidence for a top-heavy rotation, but right now he is very good evidence for not having all the eggs in one basket. Meanwhile, among several decent starters a team always has a shot at a fantastic game, and no ace is a guarantee.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
by hazel on Oct 14, 2008 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It the common perception
And I am not rejecting it out of hand, but I do think it is a bit overblown. Would like to look at the numbers a bit more. I’d classify most of the team that won the series lately as balanced though. I think the last WS winner to have an pitcher in the top 5 in ERA+ was the Diamondbacks in 01’ with Randy Johnson.
Last year the Red Sox and Rockies were more balanced than topheavy. In 06’ the Tigers were also. The Cards may just have been bad…they did have Carpenter though. The White Sox in 05’ were balanced. You could make an argument either way for the Red Sox in 04’….
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boston last year with Beckett--he was #4 in the AL
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Oct 14, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was looking at the ML as a whole
Clearly you need to have pretty good pitching to win, so I’m not too interested in getting caught up in arguing the point. Just want to mention that plenty of teams that are more balanced do fine in the postseason, and some that are “built for the playoffs” do not.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem in 04
was that the Cardinals didn’t have Carp in the postseason. That was the year where he developed that bizarre nerve problem at the end of the season and just never got back on the field.
by DanUpBaby on Oct 14, 2008 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you missed " first" before " year"
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
by mattyfrommo on Oct 14, 2008 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the 2006 post season
Weaver and Suppan were just as effective as Carp. Having aces doesn’t promise a WS, just ask the Oswalt, Clemens, Pettite trio.
You just need as much talent as you can get and hope they produce at the right time and you get a little lucky. I think is we ran this same study on OPS+ you would see much more consistency in the numbers. Its why position players are a better investment.
The flip side to this is to look at how many sub 90 ERA+ pitchers suddenly turn a 115+ season. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the % close to that of previous 115+ guys.
by DriverZn on Oct 14, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember back in the day when lb talked about the Cardinals' "scrubs 'n' studs" approach?
I still think this is the right thing to do if you’re not in a Yankees-type infinite payroll scenario.
- Sign all of the irreplacable superstars you can get your hands on and afford without crippling yourself.
- Complement these guys with a few valuable contributing young players.
- Fill out your roster with reliable, if unspectacular, free agents/trades.
So long as you spend your money intelligently in the first step, it’s not a bad strategy, particularly if you are putting a focus on defense with your moderately priced regulars, which will make those mediocre starters look a whole lot better than they are. Perhaps this is the hybrid approach to the bottom up or top down approach—have maybe ONE fantastic ace pitcher, and then just try to build a bunch of depth behind that guy.
Or I’m just talking in ciricles. I do that too, especially when I’ve been working for too long.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
by Valatan on Oct 14, 2008 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
thegodfathers suggestion
130 as the baseline season, and then counting the # of 115 ERA+ in the 4 season afterwards….
There were 61 seasons of 130 or better ERA+ from 2002-2004
9 of the 61 (14.8) went over 115 in all 4 seasons afterwards
6 (9.8) above 115 in 3 seasons
9 (14.8) over 115 in 2 seasons
17 (27.9) over 115 in 1 season
20 (32.8%) never pitched over 115 in any of the 4 seasons
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the extra work
It’s kind of scary to see that pitching just doesn’t hold up that well. The only real way to see if top of the rotation starters are able to maintain performance better/worse than mid-low rotation types would be to look at the percentages for the other types as well, so that you can compare them. I’m not asking you to do this, I’ve made you work enough already. Thanks
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Oct 14, 2008 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is simply more random noise in year to year pitching performances.
Which, if you are willing to accept that premise can very much work to your advantage. If you know that throwing money at pitchers is a high risk, low reward exercise, then don’t. Let your competitors over pay for pitching and spend your money on position players where you have a much better idea what you will get.
You can stockpile good defenders and hitters that will win you pleanty of games with average pitching. Realistically if you have 10 average pitchers, 1 or 2 are likely to have a peak year that rivals an “ace” so you get your good performances. Just don’t assume that the present predicts the future.
by DriverZn on Oct 14, 2008 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
appreciate your efforts.
the 115 ERA+ could have been a career year for many, so i guess i disagree with letting one year be the benchmark for the following years. at the end of their career, that could have been their best year. it’s like asking a small sample size to bite you.
when making a FA multi-year offer, it seems like using the previous 3 yrs averaged ERA+ results would be the benchmark i would use, to establish the value of the future three year contract offered.
by ball in play on Oct 14, 2008 6:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Peavy ERA+
2004 = 171
2005 = 134
2006 = 99
2007 = 159
2008 = 137
5yr avg = 140
3yr avg = 131
So we are saying taking on his 5yr contract may not be a bad thing?
by Knighttime on Oct 14, 2008 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, peavy has to be traded for...........
so there will be a cost in prospects / players beyond his contract. but, is peavy worth his contract according to his ERA+ ? let’s look at the standard the org just established with lohse……….
lohse 4 yrs 40 mil, 10 mil per (and i’m not going to try to be exact). just ballpark figures as an overview……2008 / 113 ERA+……2007 / 100………2006 / 78………2005 / 106……4 yr avg / 99.25 ERA+.
lets call him a 100 ERA+ average for the last 4 yrs. he gets offered 10 mil avg. over next 4 yrs and accepts.
easy comparison…..100 ERA+ = 10 mil per year, times the years offered, established by the lohse signing.
peavy has 5 yrs left under contract, or 4 yrs and a buyout. 2009 / 8m…..2010 / 15m…….2011 / 16m…..2012 / 17m……2013 / 22m…..5 yr total / 78mil…….15.6m per yr
you showed peavys 5 yr ERA+ avg at 140…..for me, based on the recent lohse contract, he’s worth 14mil a year. agree?
his 5 yr contract avgs 15.6 mil per……..over 5 yrs that’s an additional 8 mil (1.6 difference X 5yrs). not outragous, but above the standard set.
his 4 yr contract and buyout shaves 18 mil off the total….60 mil / 15 per yr…..now he’s only 1 mil over per yr.
but, he has to be traded for too. i don’t dislike his contract, and am not overly concerned about his elbow, but what’s their price in prospects. it needs to be very large. santana like, i would think.
by ball in play on Oct 14, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Career years
The problem is that if you filter out all those and are left with just those that kept it up for 3-4 years straight, the sample size would be very small. And then the famous horror stories like Hampton, Schmidt, Zito, Colon carry a pretty heavy weight. Additionally, at that point there are still no guarantees that the production will continue for another 3-4 years, though most likely the price you’ll have to pay will carry the assumption that it will continue.
Acknowledging that career years could skew the numbers to that extent suggests that there are other ways, better ways, to attack this other than to throw 20 million and/or trade your prospects for an ace.
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 14, 2008 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The past doesn't predict the future with pitchers.
ERA+ 126, 125, 142, 103, 116
We invested in that guy and got.
62, 36, 39 for the next 3 years.
I would always sell a SP like Peavy in exchange for a young position player. Odds are Peavy won’t continue to post >100 ERA+ over the next 5 years and pitch lots of innings at the same time.
by DriverZn on Oct 14, 2008 7:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The 10% is purely mathematical...
…and does nothing to address an improvement of odds based on careful analysis. It’s not as if teams should be throwing darts at free agents, hoping they hit the 1 in 10 that will work out in the long run. Yes…teams make bad decisions all the time. Yes…sometimes good decisions turn bad because of injury. But…there’s far less risk in a Sabathia, who has a multi-year resume of high level performance w/o serious injury, then there is with a Carl Pavano, who had one such year of high performance, or a Jason Schmidt, who everyone but the Dodgers seemed to know was still injured.
by sabertooth5185 on Oct 17, 2008 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Building pitching from within...
is the ultimate solution to all of this. If we emulate the Rays, then in 2 years it is likely that we could have the best rotation in the league if 2 of Garcia, Todd, Mortensen, Boggs, McClellan (assuming he’s a starter in the future) or others turn out to be average to above average pitchers. This makes our rotation Wagonmaker, Housebuilder, 2 of the above mentioned, and I guess, Oh my God we’re going to Kyle Lohse, unless he sucks/ gets injured and we replace him too. By piling up good pitching prospects, we control cost and then it doesn’t matter if a guy has an off year because we’re not paying him 22 million dollars and we can simply replace them with our minor league depth.
by aaron_notmiles on Oct 21, 2008 3:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
very much agreed
Building from within – especially for a pitching staff – is alway the preferred method. Unfortunatly the negative view is – what if none of them develop into effective big league pitchers?
I sure hope they all do succeed or as you say if even only 2 of them, but I would guess the odds are against that happening. Not too long ago we had Haren, Ankiel, Hutchinson, Reyes, Smith, Stephenson, Pearce, Journell, Parrott all in the pipeline and all with high hopes of devloping in order to build a pitching staff from within that would anchor the team for years to come.
by Knighttime on Oct 22, 2008 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is that negative view worse than the FA option
Where you sink $$$ into a pitcher that becomes ineffective due to injury or age?
The risks are similar but the $$$ is not.
by DriverZn on Oct 22, 2008 5:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
great point
about the money. If all things go bad, it’s easier to take if you are not paying multiple pitchers $10M – $20M to rehab for 2 years or watching them pitch like crap. I’m not a guy who gets excited about the prospect of the team spending huge money on a free agent pitcher, I was hoping the cards didn’t get involved with Zito, Schmidt, and/or Clemens. I’m not totally opposed to Peavy, but would not want to give up a huge package of prospects to get him – and the 5yr contract is scary. I would prefer to keep our guys and pray they turn into effective big league pitchers/players – specifically Rasmus and Perez who I see as high upside players in key positions.
I have high hopes for the young guys in the system today, and certainly see them as the best way to build a succesful team while keeping payroll in control, but there is no guarantee it’ll happen.
by Knighttime on Oct 22, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
