Is the Pitching Really that Good? The pessimistic view
One of the things that's been somewhat enjoyable is that all things considered, the Giants pitching has been really good this year - with the starting rotation in particular being absolutely magnificent. The Giants have a team ERA of 3.77, and 4 SP's with an ERA below that. I can't recall who (and it may have been more than one person - a common sentiment perhaps) mentioned that they wouldn't swap the Giants rotation for anyone - and there was a fair amount of consensus around that belief.
The bad news: Our pitching is living on knife-edge - anyone want to take a bet on Matt Morris ending the year with a 3.20 ERA bet? The team's K/BB ratio is 1.42 - and the overall K/9 rate is 5.69. That K/BB ratio is 28th in the majors - and that K/9 rate is 25th. Simply put, that's not sustainable.
Those stats would be less troublesome when you have a good/great defense to back you up (Omar and Pedro make that category if we're being generous - no one else), but that's not really the Giants forte. The team's Defensive Efficiency (basically, what percentage of Balls in play end up as outs) is .710 - 13th in the majors. Some of this may be the park effect (fly ball pitchers in a large park), but I don't know if that's likely to last either, given the age of the team. Ray-Ray can be described as an average fielder through our rose-tinted glasses - Bonds and Klesko, the less said, the better.
What's causing this "luck"? The Giants are pretty solid as BAPIP goes, but one statistic stuck out for me: HR as a % of FB. The league average is 9% - and the Giants are currently at about 6%. For context - this is the lowest number in baseball (the Dodgers are also at 6%).
Essentially, a lot of those flyballs are staying in the park. This may well be a Pac Bell effect (although the park has essentially been neutral the last couple of years - not a pitcher's park as perceived), or it may be a sign that the Giants are getting significantly luckier than their K-rates suggest.
To summarize: The results don't match the peripherals, and that's more than a little worrisome - when the pitching goes back to what the numbers indicate, we will be in trouble.
Where's the downside coming from? Well, its no secret that Matt Morris and Noah Lowry (them of the 15/18 and 16/16 K/BB ratios) are both light years better than their peripherals suggest. Simlarly, Matt Cain is a great pitcher, but a K/BB ratio of 25/21 was not that of an 1.51 ERA pitcher - his last start was certainly not reflective of him as a whole, but unless he gets significantly better control, his current ERA (3.08) is a great goal for the season. Cain may well be one of the rare pitchers whose stuff is good enough for consistently lower BAPIP rates, but it seems hard to make that call just yet. Moreover, the Giants have had only 2 blown saves in the year - again, the 5th lowest in baseball. Now, saves are generally a pretty useless statistic, but its telling that Benitez has been perfect this year - by any neutral impression, that's not going to last.
That being said, this analysis is all pre-Enchanter - I think he's a reasonable bet to be the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher on the Giants. Overall though, I find myself more worried about what's to come, especially since the offense is striving for mediocrity at best.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
16 comments
Comments
Re: Is the Pitching Really that Good? The pessimis
Basically, while I do expect some regression from all parties involved in the ERA department, I also expect some improvement in the peripherals so that regression won't be as bad as it looks right now - and as you say, there's the Tim Lincecum factor.
by JakeS on May 6, 2007 2:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Is the Pitching Really that Good? The pessimis
by JakeS on May 6, 2007 2:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Is the Pitching Really that Good? The pessimis
by Bhaakon on May 6, 2007 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zito's peripherals
by rfloh on May 6, 2007 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Zito's peripherals
by JakeS on May 6, 2007 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Zito's peripherals
by Bhaakon on May 6, 2007 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zito's peripherals
- 146, 88, 231.7
- 163, 81, 213.0
- 171, 89, 228.3
- 151, 99, 221.0
Also, for DIPSomaniacs, Zito's FIP this year is 3.55. Now, this is not to say that Zito's not getting lucky. A HR / flyball rate of 2.8% is not going to last.
by rfloh on May 8, 2007 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Is the Pitching Really that Good? The pessimis
by Goofus on May 6, 2007 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Is the Pitching Really that Good? The pessimis
by howtheyscored on May 6, 2007 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Is the Pitching Really that Good? The pessimis
by Bhaakon on May 6, 2007 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most metrics that I've seen
by rfloh on May 6, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Is the Pitching Really that Good? The pessimis
Feliz - plus
Omar - plus
Durham - plus
Aurilia plus/Klesko minus - even
Bonds - even
Roberts - plus
Winn - plus (poor arm, but gets to a lot of balls)
Moline - even (and that might be harsh)
I don't think it would be all that shocking if they remained 13th in the league in defense. After all, that's not even in the top 3rd.
by Goofus on May 6, 2007 2:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The factual view
The Giants have a number of pitchers who might not fit the DIPS model. Zito definitely has shown the ability to keep it substantially lower than .300 and Cain has been south of .300, and greatly so, while in the pros except for his first season, which was cut short. Ortiz was also south of .300 much of his career, though it is too soon to tell if he's actually able to still do that. And Lincecum certainly looks like a sub .300 BABIP pitcher as well, based on his minors stats, though obviously not by today's game line.
Less hits means you can have a higher BB/9 (and thus K/BB) and still do well as a pitcher, particularly since BIP accounts for something like 60-70% of all plays and hits do more damage than BB. I forgot where I posted stats but I took each pitcher's reduced
Morris doesn't strike out a lot anymore but he has demonstrated over this career that he can keep his BB/9 down low and, once he lost his velocity, got his BB/9 down even lower. This season has been an aberration in that he's walking a lot more than usual, but has been extremely lucky in keeping HR/9 and HR/FB way down low. Each should approach his career means and counteract each other as the season progresses. In addition, since he's become a low velocity starter (2003 on), his BABIP has been on the lower side, though not dramatically so, but that's not necessary if you walk at a very low rate, like he does (mid to low 2's when 3 is good). The thing is, he's capable of a high 3 ERA, low 4 ERA, based on his peripherals, and he was there last season until the very end when at some point he got injured (and should have DLed but kept silent).
Lowry I've been worried about because he hasn't had a high K game since his strained oblique last season, but this last game with 8 K's and 1 BB tells me that he's got his changeup working again and he'll be like he was in 2005 and not like how he was in 2006. Last season and this season, until his last game, highest he could strike out was 6. In 2005, 12 starts out of 33 that he had 7 or more strikeouts. In fact, he was slow starting that season too, he didn't hit 7+ strikeouts until May 6th, so he's right on target if 2005 is what he's capable of.
So I like the Giants rotation a lot, both long term and for playoff success. Pitchers like Cain and Lincecum can be dominant when they are on, and Zito, Lowry, and Morris have good outings many more times than disastrous ones. That's why I like the Zito signing, because it made our rotation pretty top notch relative to most teams, he was the tipping point from a good to a great rotation.
If you examine how the rotation compares to the majors, they are basically a rotation of #2 starters (see The Hardball Times articles on starters by slot by Jeff Sackman). BP noted that Zito, despite his negatives sabermetically, is the top or #2 starter on most rotations (see 2007 comments on Zito). Cain had a high 3 ERA after his skipped start and clearly has been doing well this season. Lowry had a high 3 ERA in 2004 and 2005 and, as I noted, he seems to be rounding into 2005 form. Morris, was a low to mid 4 ERA last season until the very end when he was pitching injured. Ortiz, who knows now, but he was a #2 type previously but even if he isn't, Lincecum gives us hope that he can be something like a #2 if Ortiz isn't.
That's a rotation full of #2 starters (or possibly better) that will be hard for any team to get through, during the season or in the playoffs, leaving it up to our offense to just be average and that will win us a lot of games if they can. After their slow start, they have been average and we have won a lot.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on May 6, 2007 10:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: The factual view
Less hits means you can have a higher BB/9 (and thus lowered K/BB) and still do well as a pitcher, particularly since BIP accounts for something like 60-70% of all plays and hits do more damage than BB. I forgot where I posted stats but I took each pitcher's reduced BABIP and see what it did to their K/BB if I subtracted that from their BB/9 rate, and it made a significant difference.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on May 7, 2007 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: The factual view
by Lyle on May 7, 2007 6:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: The factual view
But thanks, appreciate the comment nonetheless.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on May 11, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















