Buster Olney ranks the top 5 rotations

Not an insider.

Is it

Red Sox (Given)

Yankees
Phillies
Mariners
Braves? or Dodgers?

My career path, have you seen it?

by say hey nation on Feb 9, 2010 10:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Here it is...

Red Sox
Yankees
White Sox
Angels
Cardinals.

He has the Phillies at 5a.

WHY IS BENGIE?!

by Lars The Wanderer on Feb 9, 2010 10:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

WHAT!!

No Mariners (home boy for the Giants, not going to argue that)!!!!!!

That seems like a shitty list.

My career path, have you seen it?

by say hey nation on Feb 9, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Shoddy as well

"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.

by hairball on Feb 9, 2010 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What a Bocock!

Chick's dig the long ball.

by Fulcher on Feb 9, 2010 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Others in the mix, per Olney: Braves, Giants, Rays, D-backs.

If we’re talking strength from 1 through 5, seems to me the Rockies should be on that list, too.

I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity.

by esseffgeez on Feb 9, 2010 11:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yankees are good but meh unless Vasquez has another great year (unlikely) and Burnett becomes consistent and healthy (unlikely) and Chamberlain becomes consistent (possible) and Pettitte manages to stave off the impending implosion of his career (unlikely).

The White Sox’ Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, and Garcia are pretty damned good, but only Peavy can be considered a great pitcher, and he’s got injury concerns and not-in-Petco concerns; plus, 2-5 are basically all almost-4.00 ERA pitchers, which is good towards the fifth spot, but can’t compete in the front end.

Angels lost Lackey and replaced him with Piniero who is good but not better, Santana is iffy, Saunders is meh, Weaver is good, Kazmir is going to implode given what happened in Tampa.

Wainwright and Carpenter give the Cards a great 1-2 punch (but probably not as good as Lincecum/Cain or Hernandez/Lee, so I don’t know why they’re so high), but Lohse isn’t great and Penny isn’t really a known quantity; he could be the marvel of SF or the failure of Boston. They don’t have a fifth starter listed on their depth chart, so if that isn’t being held against them, our situation can’t be held against us.

I’d go 1. Red Sox 2. White Sox 3. Giants 4. Rockies 5. Phillies

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So Brad Penny was the number five starter on the Giants last year, and then he goes to a team where he would be number three, yet somehow their rotation is better? Makes sense.

No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you

by rxmeister on Feb 10, 2010 8:37 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think he pitched like a number 5 with SF?

by chilibean_3 on Feb 10, 2010 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He was also pitching for a contract.

"It appears that Sabean is playing a game of chicken with Neukom wherein he elucidates the most outrageous things he could do as ML GM without getting fired." - cornball

#2 in Fanshots

by scout6 on Feb 10, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no, but he did

pitch worse than a number 5 w/ the sawx, so it evens out.

Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl

by Viliphied on Feb 10, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But he really didn’t. His results were worse, sure, but most of it was out of his control. His FIP was solid enough.

by Missing Barry on Feb 10, 2010 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, their defense was pretty “meh”. It was something they worked to address this offseason.

WHY IS BENGIE?!

by Lars The Wanderer on Feb 10, 2010 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

THE ANGELS?

LOL

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare

by jponry on Feb 9, 2010 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

fangraph projections

just for i ran these rotations with fangraph’s projected WAR and it plays out like this:
1. Red Sox – 18.6
2. Yankees – 18.8
3. White Sox – 14.7
4. Angels – 14.4
5. Cardinals – 14.1*
6. Phillies – 16.2

*inserted Mitchell Boggs as the 5th starter for the Cardinals

Here’s how the Giants rotation compares with Bumgarner as our 5th starter:
Giants – 19.6
that’s mostly thanks to an astounding 7.9 value of Lincecum

by berserker77 on Feb 9, 2010 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you, I’ve been waiting for some actual evidence to come out. So even if we have a replacement level starter instead of Bumgarner’s 1.7 projected WAR, we’re still looking at 17.9 WAR and one of the top rotations in baseball. No surprise that Buster Olney doesn’t give actual evidence like this in his columns…..

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 5:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

which projections on fangraphs did you use?

FU, FO

by oldjacket on Feb 9, 2010 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The fans’ projections. Which include Bumgarner with a 3.80 ERA, and a 7.70 K/9.

I was promised lasagna.

by Cookyman on Feb 10, 2010 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Generally speaking, Olney is a bit of a pillock.

But….in reality our lineup is

’Scum
Cain
? – Sanchez
? – Zito
? – ?

We are pretty sure what we are going to get from Tim and Cain. But Sanchez is a question mark. Is last year a sign of a significant uptick in his performance trend or will he return to being streaky? Zito certainly performed better last year, but I don’t know anyone who is certain that his ’07 & ’08 performances are solidly in his rear view mirror.
The 5th spot? A question, wrapped in a conundrum, surrounded by mystery.

Your bench player is our #5 hitter!!!

by Mr. Angry on Feb 9, 2010 11:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

On that same note look at the Yankees,

CC
Vasquez
AJ-? (super inconsistent, but better overall, so far, than Dirty or Zito)
Petite- Flat out sucks, rather have Zito
Chamberlain-????

My career path, have you seen it?

by say hey nation on Feb 9, 2010 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hughes > Joba

Kevin Frandsen: The best SS on the Giants roster
Hoping for BowkerMania to hit AT&T Park in 2010

by Gobroks on Feb 9, 2010 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Couldn’t agree more. Outside of Lincecum and Cain, we may still be praying for rain. All it takes is Zito and Sanchez to return to 2008 form.

Adopted brother of Jason Jarvis. To pass the time during the offseason I decided to try my hand at blogging about photography and music.

by j14 on Feb 9, 2010 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of Sanchez questioning in this thread. It kind of confuses me, over the last two seasons, he’s posted a 3.85 and 4.17 FIP. FIP is largely skill based and doesn’t tend to see large season-to-season changes. Throw in minor league history, the fact that his BB/9 really can’t get much worse (but can get better), the fact that we know he has ridiculous strikeout stuff….I’m really not seeing the questions with Sanchez, other than “how many innings can he throw”. Sanchez is a solid pitcher, in fact, he’s probably even better than his ERA indicates.

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Its because he is incredibly inconsistent. (See his May & June from last season for reference or similar horrible months the previous year.) People will always wonder if this is the year he finally puts it together for an entire season and has an era below 4 for once? Or will this be the year where he sucks for the entire season and revert to the 5+ era and 1.5 whip?

by m34josh on Feb 9, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, you’re looking at ERA. Focus on the things he’s most in control of, and it paints a different story.

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or maybe you are missing the two months of each season that he is absolutely terrible each year?

by m34josh on Feb 9, 2010 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I include the whole thing. I was going to go into K-rates and BB-rates by month, but unfortunately, BB-Ref only has K-rates in its month splits….

But wait! I just remembered Fangraphs has splits now! Let me see what I can find. Hmmm, looks like he posted a sub-5 FIP in every single month last year. Yeah, he did pitch better in the second half then the first, but still, some of his struggles were simply a result of bad luck, and overall for the season, last season, and his career, he’s very likely been a better pitcher than his ERA indicates.

by Missing Barry on Feb 10, 2010 6:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

or FIP doesn't work all that well all the time

by JetSam on Feb 10, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure what you mean by “work all that well”. Sure, how many runs guys allow, in small samples, can, and often is, very off from what their FIP says. But the whole point of FIP is to measure things that the pitcher actually has sustainable control over – sometimes the defense doesn’t do it’s part, sometimes the hits just happen to come in bunches, oh well, there’s not a whole lot you can do about things like that. It doesn’t necessarily mean the pitcher pitched poorly, usually it just means the pitcher got the bad half of random variation.

by Missing Barry on Feb 10, 2010 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Work that well in that it does a shitty job of measuring performance. Giving up runs while avoiding walks and HRs often means the pitcher is performing poorly.

by JetSam on Feb 10, 2010 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

DIPS theory, my friend, DIPS theory.

by Missing Barry on Feb 10, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Much like quatum theory

Counter-intuitive, yet strongly supported by the evidence.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Feb 10, 2010 10:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not that counter intuitive, though.

I was promised lasagna.

by Cookyman on Feb 11, 2010 2:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds near perfect

clearly there is absolutely no question that Penny performed in a near identical fashion in boston and SF. Any question can be answered by the universal random variable.

by JetSam on Feb 11, 2010 7:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Talk of “universal random variables”; seems like there is little prior knowledge of DIPS theory.

I recommend checking it out before bashing it without knowledge of the content and evidence.

The Kids: Lewis, Posey, Sandoval, Bowker, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Amezaga

Current Team: Rowand, Sanchez, DeRosa, Sandoval, Huff, Molina, Renteria, Schierholtz

The Kids' CHONE WAR projection= 12.7
Current Team's CHONE WAR projection= 12.6

by dregarx on Feb 11, 2010 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Please

the guy who misses bonds has already gone on about it. It is everywhere as the universal explanation for anything inexplicable.

by JetSam on Feb 11, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Theories are everywhere.

by JetSam on Feb 11, 2010 7:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It all just depends on what you’re trying to measure. Certainly giving up runs means the team will be unsuccessful, the question is, how much of that was the pitcher not pitching well, and how much was things that are simply out of his control?

by Missing Barry on Feb 11, 2010 8:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You already stated that it was the Boston defense and when he came to SF, the defense was better.

by JetSam on Feb 11, 2010 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sanchez is a solid pitcher but in this thread we are comparing him to the other third or fourth starters in elite pitching staffs. Hence the questioning, at least in my case.

Adopted brother of Jason Jarvis. To pass the time during the offseason I decided to try my hand at blogging about photography and music.

by j14 on Feb 9, 2010 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

His BB/9 can absolutely get worse. But more likely, and almost as bad, is if his BB/9 stays static and he starts to lose his stuff due to age (which WILL happen), never having realized his massive potential. Sanchez has to improve his control before he’s going to be the great pitcher he can be, and he’s got to do it soon; his K/9, which is all that’s keeping him in the majors, isn’t going to be there forever.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The concept of “regression towards the mean” tells us he’s more likely to get better than worse, plus he was better in the minors, plus, his career BB/9 is better than he did last year, indicating he was probably worse in that department than his talent level. So yeah, all signs point to Sanchez being good to go. We’re only talking about this season for this conversation, right?

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I do think that this will be Sanchez’ breakout year, when he finally gets some semblance of control and has only dominant starts and okay starts, finally settling around a mid-3’s ERA. But I also think that with pitchers as control-challenged as Sanchez, regression to the mean isn’t a given; sometimes, they go in the complete opposite direction of where you’d expect, and just cannot throw strikes at all and flame out.

Besides, I was merely pointing out that actually, it is in fact possible for Sanchez’ BB/9 to get worse. I assume you knew that already, but I felt it necessary to say that while it probably will get better, let’s not go assuming anything just yet.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough, of course he could get worse, I didn’t mean to imply he can’t, it’s just more likely that he gets better than worse (though I don’t mean to say I know which will actually happen). I also see a good possibility of a real breakout from Sanchez, both from an ERA (which is expected his career ERA is .7 higher than his career FIP) and FIP perspective…

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He had an extreme outlier in random events?

by JetSam on Feb 9, 2010 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sanchez is a question mark?
dude throws no-hitters

01.19.2010
r.i.p. buster posey I really thought you had a shot

by sanfrankid on Feb 10, 2010 11:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m guessing Olney doesn’t provide an actual shred of evidence to support his rankings? Yeah, I can’t stand Olney, he’s one of the bigger douche’s out there.

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 11:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

He grew up in central Vermont collecting baseball cards and listening to Red Sox, Expos, Phillies and Pirates radio broadcasts, and was a rabid fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

These pretzels are making me thirsty

by NuschlerFace on Feb 9, 2010 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That is checklist full of evil! All it needs is Yankees.

My career path, have you seen it?

by say hey nation on Feb 9, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and a reference to purple row…

Les Plack = more chicks
Yahoo FFL champ 2009
Dingerz.exe League Champs 2009- The Rile Rods...managed by yours truly.
Chose the Saints and the under to win my bet with my gf...i'm on a roll.

by Headhunter Rollins on Feb 9, 2010 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That is checklist full of ~~evil~~ Candyland expert!

by E Ticket on Feb 9, 2010 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Red Sox are the only rotation that I might switch with. What epic fail.

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Feb 9, 2010 12:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

C’mon, the Yankees rotation crushes ours.

by Evan on Feb 9, 2010 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Chasm?

Timmy>CC
Cain>Burnett
ZitoPettitte
Madbum/5th SP <> Chamberlain

Generally I’d take us over them. I think 3 of our 5 are better, and one of the other two might be.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You forgot Vazquez. Bump everybody after CC down a slot.

I think you’re underestimating the league difference. If Pettitte and Zito, for instance, have identical stats, then Pettitte is a quarter-run better, maybe more. But they don’t have identical stats; Pettitte’s are measurably better, even last year.

by Evan on Feb 9, 2010 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The thing is, as meh as Zito is, Pettite has got to implode one of these years. At this point, I’d rather take Zito if the contracts aren’t a factor.

STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.

by UnleashTheGore on Feb 9, 2010 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone has to implode sometime, but Pettitte still throws a lot harder than Zito, for more innings, with better control. Hard to see what’s to like about Zito in that comparison.

by Evan on Feb 9, 2010 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Pettitte’s 38 this season, Zito’s 32. And Jamie Moyer says that soft-tossing lefties age well; if they lose velocity like a lot of their flamethrowing counterparts, it doesn’t matter as much because they never relied on it to begin with. I think Zito is better than Pettitte, and I did forget Sanchez, who is probably worse than Vazquez. But Vazquez wasn’t great the last time he was facing the AL East, and it’s only gotten better since then, plus Vazquez had a crazy good and very anomalous year in 2009 (2009 FIP: 2.77, which is a half run better than anything he’s posted previously, and came in his age 32-33 season; excuse me for being skeptical).

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Jamie Moyer doesn’t say that anymore than Nolan Ryan says hard throwing right handers will pitch until they’re 46. Outliers aren’t instructive predictors.

My Bucardo is better than yours.

A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.

by Roger on Feb 9, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I shouldn’t have said lefties, because I don’t think it matters, but generally I see Zito aging better than Pettitte. He hasn’t relied on velocity, the first thing that age takes away, and he’s had basically zero injury history, which encourages the notion that his delivery isn’t prone to hurting him. I expect him to be the same decidedly mediocre pitcher until the end of his Giants contract, while Pettitte should be posting ERAs above 5.00 any day now.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But Pettitte’s already aged better than Zito is likely to. I mean unless you’re meaning that Zito at 38 is likely to be better than Pettitte at 44, I’m not quite sure what you’re argument is here. Pettitte is 6 years older and yet consistently better than Zito.

My Bucardo is better than yours.

A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.

by Roger on Feb 9, 2010 7:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When Zito lost velocity in 2007-2008, he became pretty terrible.

I was promised lasagna.

by Cookyman on Feb 10, 2010 9:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

According to PitchFX

Zito’s average fastball velocity over the last 3 seasons has gone from 84.8 in 2007 to 86.5 last season. That is not an insignificant increase, but I am not sure it would account for all of his performance difference. What did increase significantly was the amount of movement he was getting on his pitches. The horizontal movement on his fastball went from 3.8 in 2007 to 6.6 (!) last season. And the horizontal movement on his curve went from 1.0 to 4.5.

I am not sure what to attribute the additional movement to. Perhaps Rags (or someone) spotted a mechanical issue?

WHY IS BENGIE?!

by Lars The Wanderer on Feb 10, 2010 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Correction

The numbers for the horizontal movement on his curve should be negative values.

WHY IS BENGIE?!

by Lars The Wanderer on Feb 10, 2010 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m using Fangraphs’ numbers. The difference between his prime and his 2007 was around 2.5 MPH, which I think is very significant, even if it’s not the only factor.

I was promised lasagna.

by Cookyman on Feb 10, 2010 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."

by ResDog on Feb 10, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You don’t have to speculate about what will happen to Zito as he loses velocity; you can just go look at the data. Here are his average fastball velocites for the last five years:

87.3, 85.8, 84.5, 84.9, 86.5

and here are his FIPs for the corresponding years:

4.34, 4.89, 4.82, 4.72, 4.31

See the pattern? The harder he throws, the better he is.

by Evan on Feb 9, 2010 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, obviously; throwing harder means pitching better. That’s why we value velocity. But the more important point is that Zito doesn’t rely on his fastball to carry him like a lot of pitchers do. He has other options, and having those options means he’ll age better, because velocity is quickly lost as pitchers get older, and the ones that didn’t know how to throw anything but heat, and now can’t throw heat, are no longer effective.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 7:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Velocity is about more than just throwing it past hitters. The better velocity a pitcher features, the better arm speed and strength he tends to have, and the more spin and movement he’ll be able to impart on his breaking pitches. Furthermore, being able to throw at higher velocity will improve the speed difference on his changeup, and it means that he can throw with less effort, giving him better endurance and location.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Feb 9, 2010 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re putting a lot of stock in assumptions and preconceptions that, as far as I know, don’t have any empirical support. If you can show me a study that indicates that soft-tossing junkballers age better than pitchers with some velocity, great. Till then, I’ll believe the opposite.

The fact is, Pettitte has been a more effective pitcher than Zito every year of their careers, usually MUCH more effective. Last year was the first time it was in any way close. If the only numbers that matter to you are 38 and 32, so be it, but be aware that the projections systems disagree.

With Vazquez, you seem to have chosen to focus on his bad fluke year (2004) while discounting his good one (2009). Widen your scope a bit and it becomes apparent that he’s just as good as Matt Cain, probably better.

by Evan on Feb 9, 2010 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m too lazy to do it myself, but does anybody know what the almighty projections say?

Adopted father of the prettiest player in the organization, Nestor Rojas.

by stealth snail on Feb 9, 2010 12:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't have much of a problem with this list

It’s hard to rank the Giants in the top 5 when they don’t know who their fifth starter is yet. How can we be considered an elite rotation if our rotation is not even complete yet?
On a different note, why is it that Bochy seems to be set on having Zito as the number two starter? I understand the righty-lefty deal, but doesn’t make much more sense to order your rotation based off how good they are? I think it’s very clear that Cain is the number 2 pitcher for the Giants

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

by lincecuminyourface on Feb 9, 2010 1:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The longstanding idea is that you follow a righty with a lefty or a fireballer with a soft-tosser. I don’t think it’s any less effective than any other mix in the regular season.

JUST A CITY BOY

by shanghaijim on Feb 9, 2010 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know about the ones he lists, but he explicitly states he’s going by 1-5, not just top 2, which he states as Seattle, St. Louis, and SF.

I agree. I’m not comfortable with Sanchez or Zito, and I don’t know who the fifth starter is. If it’s Bumgarner, I wasn’t impressed last year, but I’m willing to hope.

JUST A CITY BOY

by shanghaijim on Feb 9, 2010 1:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

But the Angels?

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare

by jponry on Feb 9, 2010 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

CHONE RAR

Angels
Jered Weaver 35
Scott Kazmir 30
Joel Pineiro 25
Ervin Santana 25
Joe Saunders 23

I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity.

by esseffgeez on Feb 9, 2010 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's not a great staff

Good and solid, yeah, but that’s essentially 2 #2 and 3 #3’s

Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all

McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.

by baetown415 on Feb 9, 2010 6:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And that’s assuming Kazmir can hold it together and Santana is completely recovered from his injury and Weaver doesn’t carve out the same career path as his brother and Piniero can maintain the same GB% (and that the Angels’ Figgins-less defense will be okay with that).

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not a great staff, but it has depth. If your fifth starter is a #3, your rotation gives you a chance to win most nights. That said, I wouldn’t count the Angels as the fifth best rotation in baseball, either.

I ran the CHONE RARs for the starters and the top half rank like this:

Yankees – 196
Boston – 171
Phillies – 164
White Sox and Mariners – 157
Royals – 152
D-backs – 143
Giants – 140 (assumes Pucetas is #5)
Angels – 139
Rockies – 128
Braves – 124
Cubs and Rays – 123
Cardinals – 113
Dodgers – 112

I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity.

by esseffgeez on Feb 9, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And PECOTA VORPs go like this:

SFN 146.0
BOS 145.2
NYA 137.4
SEA 123.0
CHA 121.1
ATL 119.2
PHI 118.6
TBA 116.6
ARI 114.7
CHN 112.5
SLN 109.3
LAN 107.3
LAA 98.9
KCA 96.7
DET 94.8
COL 79.9
NYN 77.2

I try not to break the rules, but merely to test their elasticity.

by esseffgeez on Feb 9, 2010 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

More evidence! I always like real evidence to back up conversations like this…

by Missing Barry on Feb 10, 2010 6:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

1. Red Sox: Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, John Lackey, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Clay Buchholz, No. 6 Tim Wakefield. On paper, a strong group —

if Beckett has a season worthy of a contract drive,
if Lackey succeeds in making the transition to the American League East,
if Matsuzaka can finally get on the same page as the Red Sox staff and
if Buchholz continues to improve.

Well at least Lester is solid.

WTF am I doing even paying attention to anything written by the baseball version of US magazinein the first place. I need to slap myself.

by E Ticket on Feb 9, 2010 2:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

ST LOUIS?

Carpenter and Wainwright are really good, but lets see Carpenter make it through a whole season and Wainwright’s stats were inflated by his W/L record.

Lohse is not good. Penny is so bipolar you don’t know what you’re gonna get. Even at his best he’s a 3 on most teams. And if Rich Hill is your #5 you’re screwed.

by Fresburg on Feb 9, 2010 4:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

No, at his best he’s a #1 guy; look what he did here for a couple months. His fastball is for real, he just has no secondary pitch; he threw the FB 71.1% of the time last year, that’s the sixth most in the majors. So when his curveball is good (like in 2007 and 2009 with the Giants) and he therefore has a secondary pitch, he’s a good-to-great starter.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, he’s a #1 guy on a mediocre staff, #2 on a good staff when he’s on.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Are we talking about Brad Penny here, as a good to great starter? The same Brad Penny who’s going to be 32, and has the history of FIP/xFIP I’m looking at? I’m not seeing anything that suggests he’s good to great, but I see a lot to suggest he’s a good bet to be at least a solid contributor, but likely no more, no less…

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m saying he CAN be good to great. He usually isn’t, because he’s so dependent on his fastball, and it isn’t always the kind of pitch you can just throw over and over again. When he does have control of his curve, he is a pretty good pitcher, because it lets him break the monotony and prevent the hitter from just sitting fastball. When he doesn’t, he can either throw a crappy curveball and the hitter can watch it go by for a ball, while they continue to sit fastball until they get something they can drive. I don’t think he’s going to get better about it, and I certainly don’t think he’s worth $7.5M, but the statement that “at best he’s a 3 on most teams” isn’t true; at best, he’s a top of the rotation guy, at worst, he’s an end of the rotation guy, and he ends up averaging out somewhere in the middle.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

“can be good to great … usually isn’t” is my point here. Thanks for clarifying.

You could say the same thing about Jonathan Sanchez. Zito even has it in him to dominate for a few games a year. That doesn’t make him a potential #1 starter.

by Fresburg on Feb 11, 2010 7:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It seems to me when people discuss pitchers they still tend to look at things like ERA and W-L. These discussions should be mostly FIP/tRA based, c’mon people. Penny didn’t really pitch that differently in BOS and SF – his FIP was pretty close in both places, it was mostly things out of his control that changed his results. I know almost all of us know this stuff already, we can do better!

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 4:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Penny didn't PITCH that differently, but his RESULTS were much better.

As far as predictive qualities go, you’re absolutely correct. But the Giants have to replace Penny’s RA to replicate their 2009 pitching performance, whether it was a sample size fluke or not.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Feb 9, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But the Giants have to replace Penny’s RA to replicate their 2009 pitching performance

Yeah well comparing it to last year to see if they can replicate what they accomplished probably isn’t the best method/thought process anyways. In the context of “who has the best rotation”, we want the predictive qualities…..

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

His xFIP was a half-run better in SF than Boston. And his FB and CB both posted much, much better values in SF.

by quincy0191 on Feb 9, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That’ll happen when you move from the AL East to the NL West…

by Missing Barry on Feb 9, 2010 6:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Whenever I read something by Buster Olney, I remember the year that Steve Phillips made a series of clownishly stupid predictions about the upcoming baseball season and still out-predicted Olney.

http://vegaswatch.net/2008/09/evaluating-april-mlb-predictions-2008.html

FU, FO

by oldjacket on Feb 9, 2010 8:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

f you just used 2007 records, without looking at RS/RA or regressing or accounting for any offseason moves or doing anything, you get 12.46. So Olney’s input actually detracted from the information given. Impressive.

Those are basically my thoughts on Olney.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Feb 9, 2010 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Now ESPN has a poll on their front page asking which rotation is the best using, guess which 5 teams?

"It appears that Sabean is playing a game of chicken with Neukom wherein he elucidates the most outrageous things he could do as ML GM without getting fired." - cornball

#2 in Fanshots

by scout6 on Feb 10, 2010 2:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Guys looking at FIP...

need to get in the 2010 and ditch FIP and tRA for XFIP, tRA+ and LIPS. : )

by JoshShep50 on Feb 10, 2010 10:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Eh, I’m still unsure about xFIP……

by Missing Barry on Feb 11, 2010 8:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

On a side note...

Mark Prior is throwing off a mound according to his agent… perhaps we should extend him a minor league contract… hahaha. Seriously though, I don’t mind the audition for Wellemeyer, especially if it allows Bumgarner time to develop his secondary pitches, show improved velo and delay his arb clock. I wouldn’t mind throwing a little something at Kiko Calero as another late inning reliever if the price is right. Time to start taking advantage of guys desperate for work.

by JoshShep50 on Feb 10, 2010 10:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs