A further case made for six starters

by PhoenixPhilly on Dec 13, 2006 8:50 PM EST

[editor's note, by dajafi] Promoted from the diaries--great info on rotation attrition, in addition to a solid case for keeping Lieber.

This diary a mutt. It contains some part new information, some part response to the logic of my last diary set and some part attempt to reframe debate. It's an ugly mutt, but I think after you read it, you'll love it. Just like a Pug.

In response to the idea of keeping 6 starters and specifically not trading Jon Lieber, there have been several responses. I'll list them in what I believe to be their level of merit:

1)    We could get a lot for him in a trade.
2)    Our AAA prospects are strong.
3)    FA starters would not want to come here.
4)    Number 5 starters are "largely superfluous".

We could get a lot for him in a trade. I agree. If we can get a good deal, we should take it. But to clarify, we shouldn't get players back that we could have signed as free agents. Why trade for a RF when we might sign Huff, who can also play some third? Let's see who we can sign in the FA market first, then we'll have a better idea of what we still need. Teams will still need pitching after the FA sorts itself out. I'm not going to get into when is the best time to trade him. Who knows? We all have different opinions and little hard data to back them up.

Our AAA prospects are strong. No argument here. This is the best crop of AAA guys we have had since I can remember. I also think it is important to get guys some starts to get them used to the level of play in the majors. However... having "legitimate" prospects doesn't mean that they will necessarily be better. There is a higher chance that they will be better, but what it does mean is that they will get a longer look in the majors. This created the Floyd and Mathieson situations, where, even though they weren't pitching well in the majors they continued to be able to start. Sticking with pitchers too long is what killed the Phillies in the past. It wasn't Brito and Bernero that killed the Phillies last year, it was Floyd and Madson. These were top prospects. Giving prospects time to adjust to the majors is fine, but it will usually hurt your team in the short run.

FA starters would not want to come here. Very good point and one I didn't think of. This would ONLY be the case, though, if Lieber actually spends significant time in the pen. I believe that this diary will show those chances are small. If that does happen, and if having 6 starters every year becomes organizational policy, this could be true. But as June Carter said to Johnny Cash, "there are a lot of ifs in that sentence."

Number 5 starters are "largely superfluous". I think superfluous is a strong word. I understand the point that your worst starter will be skipped sometimes if there is an opportunity to do so and more so towards the end of the season. Where I strongly disagree is with this numbering of the starters as some magical system of ranking your pitchers. I think it is of much more use to commentators and writers. You need someone to start every game of the season. It doesn't matter whether that person is a #1 or a #5, a callup, a bullpen guy or comes from a trade. Also, saying that a #5 guy never starts a playoff game is a logical requisite. Of course you are always going to start your best 3 or 4 guys in the playoffs, so a #5 will never pitch a playoff game. The point of my first article was that you don't know who will get hurt or when, only that the majority of your staff will miss some time. The #5 or #6 guy at the beginning of the season may be your number 2 during the playoffs because of injuries, others not pitching to expectations or some pitchers pitching over expectations. How about the Mets or Yankees last year?

Okay, here is the new information. I took BRich's idea and did some further research on how other team's starting rotations have worked out. I did not do this for the last 5 years though, I only did the last 3 and only the NL East. The reason is that I had to do more than just data mining. I wanted to find out who was starting games (#1-#5, bullpen guys, guys aquired via trade or in season FAs, callups or guys who started the year on the injured list). Breaking this down for each team over the last 5 years was much too much for me, so I used the team's I'm most familiar with and I did it for 2004-2006. Here is what I found in the NL East over the last 3 years:

The average number of starts coming from the opening day 5-man rotation was 113.5.
102 in 2006
119 in 2005
120 in 2004

The average ERA for starters was 4.34. (TSE)
4.81 in 2006
3.89 in 2005
4.31 in 2004

The average number of starters used was 11.
11.5 in 2006
10 in 2005
11.5 in 2004

Next, I evaluated the effectiveness of the 4 other types of pitchers who started games (Bullpen, Callups, New Acquisitions and ILs). To do this, I used a basic method of determining whether these pitchers raised or lowered their TSE. (I know I'm no Bill James).

11 different guys who started the year on the IL (and who would have been in the top five if not for their injury) started games for their teams.
10 raised TSE
1 lowered TSE

47 different callups started games for their teams.
31 raised TSE
16 lowered TSE.

20 different bullpen arms started games for their teams.
13 raised TSE
7 lowered TSE

10 different new aquistions (in season FAs or trades) started games for their teams.
5 raised TSE
5 lowered TSE

Noting the somewhat small sample size, I won't make any overarching generalizations about what this information says. A lot of this data points towards what one would already assume. Callup guys are generally not going to be as good as your original starting five. The question is more how much they hurt you. To answer that, I would need to spend even more time that I don't want to. We could look at the projections of the AAA guys for a starting point.

Trades seem to be the best way to go to get an in-season starter. In season FAs were there for a reason. I guess Roger Clemens would be the exception to that rule. Bullpen arms are a mixed bag. When taking into account their flimsy IP, they are generally not a good long-term solution. You really have to look at whether they were a starter or not before. When I eyeball the situation, it seems that guys who were in the bullpen who were formerly starters have done relatively well. The Braves are good at this.

The most important information is that the average number of starts made by the opening day starting five is 113.5. Let's round it to 114. That means you will need 48 starts from guys who were not in the original starting five. There is enough space for full season from an "extra" starter in there. It would depend on when the injuries happened, but I think you could say that if he stayed, Lieber could get 25 starts.

The Phillies staff seems to be more injury prone than most with two guys with bad injury histories (Eaton and Hamels) and one guy who is older than dirt for a baseball player (Moyer). Garcia and Myers have good injury histories. The most starts that a NL East team has gotten from its starting five in the last three years was 137 by the Braves in 2004. They only had 6 starts from callups (Cappelan and Smith, both top prospects who raised the team's ERA) and 19 starts from Paul Byrd, who was injured to start the year. They had Horacio Ramirez as their #5 to start the year. He was injured early in the year. If you are looking for a situation similar to the 2007 projected situation, this would be the best case scenario for the Phillies in 2007. It would involve keeping Lieber, only one of the starters going down and one of the "extra" guys filling in admirably.

A lot of this is window dressing, so let's get down to brass tacks. The choice comes down to this: Would you rather have Jon Lieber for a potential 25 starts, 10 games in relief, available for the playoffs and the compensation that comes with him being a A or B Free Agent OR Would you rather have what he would bring in a trade?

Another question would be: If the Phillies still had six guys going into Spring Training, signed Huff, but no big bullpen names and one starter went down (let's say that starter would miss at least the first month of the season), would you still advocate for trading Lieber?

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

great examination

I'm promoting it to the front page.

But at the risk of embarrassing myself... what does TSE stand for?

by dajafi on Dec 13, 2006 8:59 PM EST 0 recs

this misunderstands my argument

No one ever said there was anything magical about the 1-5 order, nor did anyone make an argument that was dependent on that being the case.

Without Lieber, you'd have five guys who are good pitchers. You are right to say that even if you put those five guys in a 1-5 order to begin the season, that order might flip later on - somebody might get hurt, somebody might overachieve while someone else underachieves, etc.

But so what? Don't you see that you're the one who's actually approaching the 1-5 order as if it's set in stone, not me? If the 1-5 order gets shuffled during the season, then the guy who ends the year as #5 will be one who gets skipped after off-days and during the playoffs. If somebody gets hurt, then the replacement for the injured player will be the guy getting skipped at those times. The guy who started the year as your #5 will end up as your "#4" (or somewhere between 1-4).

But that only supports my point. Which is that since the Phillies have five guys who are pretty good, even if your designated #5 ends up moving to #4 for whatever reason, you'll still be in pretty good shape. The only way your argument would make any sense is if the #5 always remains at the quality level of a #5 (and is therefore presumed to be an inadequate replacement for #1-4), which would undermine the premise of your own argument.

As for your examples of how many teams go through a year with starters outside their 1-5, surely that's because most teams do not start the year with five good starting pitchers in their rotations. If you start the year with a rotation like the 2006 Phillies', then of course you're going to end up with a lot of other guys starting games throughout the year. But the 2007 Phillies' rotation minus Lieber is not the average starting rotation. Whatever you think of its overall quality, it clearly has more depth than the average team does. And even though it's injury prone, a lot would have to go wrong for two or more guys to be out for extended periods of time at the same time, which is what would have to happen for the average team's scenario to come about here.

Also, calling Lieber a "potential 25 starts" is pretty misleading. He's also a potential zero starts if you keep him around. His expected value is somewhere in between, and probably below the middle, even taking into account the injury risks on the staff given that you can start a #5 fewer than 25 times in a season even if everyone pitches well and nobody ever gets hurt. Even in that case, of course, Lieber would still have some value, both out of the bullpen and as insurance. But is that value really worth more than what you'd get for him in return?

Think of all the possible outcomes if Lieber stays:
1. Lieber has a bad year (b/c of old age?) = Lieber is worthless
Assuming that Lieber doesn't go downhill:

Nobody gets hurt (or has a terrible season) = Lieber has minimal value
One guy gets hurt, but a AAA starter ends up being ready = minimal value
One guy gets hurt, and no AAA starter is ready = Lieber has some value, but not that much since you could skip that spot many times anyway
Two guys get hurt, but a AAA starter is ready = same as #4

The only way Lieber has more than a little value is if (the number of guys who get hurt for extended periods of time or have terrible seasons) - (the number of our three AAA prospects who end up being ready this year) > one. Even with the injury risks, the odds of all that happening are pretty small.

Meanwhile, the odds of losing something by refusing to get anything else in exchange for Lieber will be a sure thing if you keep Lieber. Now, obviously, all this depends on the premise that you can get something good in exchange for Lieber at a position where you need it. If all you can get is crap, then I say we should keep him too. But I think everyone here agrees that you can get something better than crap.

by taco pal on Dec 13, 2006 9:35 PM EST 0 recs

I get the point, I just disagree

TSE is an acronym for the team starter's ERA. When on the stat sites, it is usually called ERA as a starter. That might have been a better way to put it. I made up the acronym.

As for the points raised above, I just disagree. It isn't because I misunderstand what you said (I shouldn't have used the word magical) but I disagree with your assumptions. Some of your points are semantics of what you "name" your starters. To clear this up, I believe you build a pitching staff not as 5 starters and 7 relievers (or however many you want to use). You build a staff of 11 or 12 or 13 pitchers that can pitch whenever needed. That's why I don't see Lieber as being in the pen. He would be maybe your sixth choice to start a game if you feel Myers, Eaton, Hamels, Moyer and Garcia are better. I'm saying that you will almost never have all of your 5 top choices and likely will go through time without your top four choices. I built the statistical case by using the opening day five to show how many starts might be made by our above five and how many might be made by Lieber if we keep him.

Insurance is something you buy in case the unexpected happens. Not getting 140 starts from your top five isn't unexpected, it's inevitable. Lieber is not insurance. He is a guy who can and would pitch a significant number of innings for the Phillies in 2007.

I'll put some more info from my research out there. The most games started by the top four starters on a team in the NL East in the last three years were 128 by the Braves in 2004.

Ortiz 34
Thompson 33
Wright 32
Hampton 29

Even in this best case scenario, you have 30 games being started by pitchers who are not your four best. How is that skipping the number five spot most of the time? Again, this is probably the best health we could hope for. It would be more likely our starting rotation would miss more games than this and since we have a deep staff, why would we routinely skip starts for the pitcher who is deemed only the worst of a quality bunch?

"As for your examples of how many teams go through a year with starters outside their 1-5, surely that's because most teams do not start the year with five good starting pitchers in their rotations."

Not true. Most teams don't start the year with 5 good starting pitchers. But that's not the main reason they go to other guys. They go with extra guys because of injuries and underperformance. Let's look at the Phillies in 2004:

Milton 34
Myers 31
Millwood 25
Wolf 23
Padilla 20

I'd say that is pretty similar to this year. Not quite the same quality, but a comparison can be made. That team had 133 starts from their opening day rotation and still needed to pickup Abbott and trade for Lidle to complete the season. Lidle may have even started a playoff game or two if we would have made it. Lidle and Abbott combined for 20 starts that year. If Lidle was with the team during Spring Training as an "extra" starter, he couldn't have made 25 starts?

Let's look at the Braves in 2005:

Smoltz 33
Ramirez 32
Hudson 29
Thompson 17
Hampton 12

That team needed 39 starts outside of the big five. They were probably about the quality of the Phillies starters in 2007. That team had an ERA of 3.65 as a starter. They got 20 great starts from Sosa at an ERA of 2.62. If they had received even the league average from Sosa, their ERA would have been about a half a run higher.

The Mets had Glavine, Pedro, Trachsel and Zambrano in their top four in 2006 and those guys only pitched 90 games for them. I think these are all relevant examples. None is perfect, but there won't be a perfect one. It's not just the quality of your guys. That is part of it, but injuries and underperformance are a much bigger part of it.

As far as the AAA guys... Yes, someone may work out, but how many poor starts will we suffer first? In the Phillies recent history, Rob Tejeda has been their best callup with 13 starts at a 2.87 ERA. Floyd '04 and Brito '05 had almost identical numbers as starters. Floyd pitched 17 games in '05 and `06 with an ERA of 7. Mathieson had 8 starts with an ERA over 8 last year. This trend is repeated over and over in the league. You don't know who will be good or not, but a pitcher with a track record can be more easily projected.

Last point about getting more than crap in a trade. I never said we had to get more than crap. I said we have to get more than Lieber's '07 value plus FAs we could sign without trading Lieber and the draft picks we would get when he potentially leaves next year.

by PhoenixPhilly on Dec 13, 2006 11:21 PM EST up 0 recs

responses

Been a hectic couple of days, but I'm back at the blog. You make some fair points. I think there are fair responses to each, but I can't possibly take care of all of them. Life is too short.

I'll just limit myself to a few. One big problem with your argument is that we're not talking about whether Lieber should come back as a fifth starter. (I'm using "fifth starter" just to indicate the total number of pitchers that we'll have, not in the sense of "#5 starter." I think we've already beaten that point to death. In fact, I think you actually agree with me on this point perhaps without recognizing it.) We're talking about him coming back as a sixth starter.

In the 2004 Braves example, you ask: "Even in this best case scenario, you have 30 games being started by pitchers who are not your four best. How is that skipping the number five spot most of the time?" But in our case, the bulk of those 30 games are already taken because there are already more than four guys other than Jon Lieber in the rotation.

Another problem is that even if we focus on fifth starters, the fact that a team gave a lot of starts to its fifth guy doesn't mean that it had to do so. You ask: "How is that skipping the number five spot most of the time?" But I never said that the number-five gets skipped most of the time. Re-read my comment. What I said was that you have the option to skip that spot on many occasions if you so desire.

In the Braves case, Paul Byrd was that fifth guy and made 19 starts. Byrd was injured in April and May, during which time Horacio Ramirez made nine starts. This was almost certainly 3-4 starts more than Ramirez needed to make, as his regular turn nearly always came six days apart - he was kept on a regular turn not because he was needed, but because of how well he pitched (2.28 ERA). What this illustrates is that the Braves example is just as much a stacked deck as teams with bad rotations would be. A team with a bad starting rotation will throw five, six, seven starters out there over the course of the year, and so lots of starts will be made by guys other than the "top four." A team with five or more good starters will also rarely skip the fifth spot, just for a different reason - because they won't want to skip him.

In the Phillies' case, we have five good starters without Lieber. If they all stay healthy, the fifth guy will never get skipped. If one gets hurt and there is a viable alternative, then the fifth guy won't get skipped. If one gets hurt and there is no viable alternative, then the fifth guy will get skipped a number of times.

In the bigger picture, the stat that you're using (starts made by the four/five starters who made the most starts for a given team) is inherently flawed because it doesn't control for (1) whether starts given to the fifth/sixth/seventh/etc. starters were necessary or optional; (2) how many good pitchers the team began the year with in its rotation; and (3) how many of the "missing" starts could have been filled in by a hypothetical "sixth starter" anyway (for instance, if a "top five" misses 20 starts over the course of a season but this is because two pitchers missed the same two months of the season, the value-added of having a sixth starter is only 10 starts, not 20). Also, limiting your frame of reference to the NL East in the last three years is too small a sample size - that's only 15 teams, the majority of whom had much worse starting rotations to start the season than the 2007 Phillies will. This is why you were only able to find three teams that could even serve as points of comparison, which is not only not perfect, but also not particularly meaningful.

I should also add that, to step back yet another step, this entire debate that we're having misses a key point, which is that we're failing to measure the cost to a team of having a bad pitcher for 5 more starts or 10 more starts or 15 more starts. I'm not convinced that the benefit of upgrading from a bad starting pitcher to a good starting pitcher for 10 games is higher than the cost of going from a bad starting position player to a good starting position player for 40-50 games. Even Paul Abbott in 2004 likely only cost us two of the ten awful games he pitched. This ended up being significant, of course, but even if we were talking about leaving an opening for another Paul Abbott here (which I think is a lot less likely than it was in 2004), we'd leave that hold only by getting something else in exchange for Lieber that could improve our team by more than two games anyway. If so, then I say, bring on Paul Abbott.

by taco pal on Dec 15, 2006 4:43 PM EST up 0 recs

Common ground

There is a lot of common ground there. I'm not convinced that Lieber will pitch better than replacement level. As far as the stats you would like to see, I would like to see them too, but as you said life is too short and I'd rather do something else.

We'll just have to see who gets the starts outside of the big five and see how they do. Hindsight will grant one of us bragging rights! (Or maybe neither of us if Lieber is traded for crap and pitches like crap somewhere else.)

I will make this prediction: We will need 45 starts outside of Myers, Hamels, Garcia, Moyer and Eaton.

by PhoenixPhilly on Dec 15, 2006 5:34 PM EST up 0 recs

ha ha

Sounds good. I think the "crap" scenario is a lot more realistic than I wish it were, but oh well.

by taco pal on Dec 15, 2006 6:58 PM EST up 0 recs

LIEBER WON'T BRING BEANS IN RETURN

"We could get a lot for him in a trade." Emphatically disagree. The Yankees insisted upon Lidle, not Lieber, and they were setting up for the post-season. Even Lidle, whom the Yankees coveted more than Lieber, in concert with Abreu, could not extract Philip Hughes from New York. This was LAST year, when he was 36 - he hits 37 in April, and believe me, outside Philadelphia they know its over for this hanger-on.

His marginal trade value is further diminished by his link with the "Allen Iverson" syndrome. Everyone knows he is the odd-man out of the Phillies rotation and his club is anxious to move him. Leverage to the other side in negotiations, there.

by robbybonfire on Dec 13, 2006 10:25 PM EST 0 recs

Jennings

Proof that the market for pitching this year is different than last year.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 14, 2006 11:04 AM EST up 0 recs

Hughes

The Abreu trade was an unconscionable act of elder abuse on Brian Cashman's part. But it was also a unique situation driven by Abreu's incredible leverage with the FNTC. If the Phils had traded Lidle alone, he would have brought back more, maybe a lot more, than the dreck Gillick took for the two of them. From the Phils' perspective, Lidle's purpose in that deal was to get the Yankees to accept Abreu's price tag--nothing else.

We were never getting Hughes. But if we'd just traded Lidle to the Yankees, the return might have started with Tyler Clippard, and could have been as much as Melky Cabrera. Without considering your assessment of Lieber's market value--which might well be correct--the comparison to that awful deal isn't really apt here.

by dajafi on Dec 14, 2006 12:31 PM EST up 0 recs

IF they sign Huff

then by all means keep Lieber because you are not likely to get anything worth the trade in return for him this early in the season. Deciding which starter not to use is a good problem to have, and you wonder when those remarkably clean injury histories will catch up with Brett and Freddy...

That said, if someone offers you say Otsuka for Lieber, then pull the trigger and get a useful arm now.

Did I see that Wilkerson was DFA'd the other day?

by das411 on Dec 14, 2006 1:53 AM EST 0 recs

Wilkerson is still with the Rangers

According to mlb.com, Wilkerson is still with the Rangers.

by Celebre Twins on Dec 14, 2006 9:41 AM EST up 0 recs

alas

Joe Sheehan on BP made the argument the other day that given the insane f/a market, there was really no percentage for teams to non-tender anyone of even marginal value. Though the Braves evidently didn't agree, Texas did, and the Rangers kept Wilkerson. I still think they'd move him in the right deal, and I'd probably take him for Lieber--though the Phillies seem to be hell-bent on getting bullpen "help" back in return.

by dajafi on Dec 14, 2006 12:33 PM EST up 0 recs

MLB Radio

Heard a Rangers reporter on MLB Radio yesterday. He said Wilkerson was about 20lbs. overweight last year, contributing to his awful season. Evidently, this offseason he has a personal trainer and is "very serious" about getting in the best shape of his life.

by PhoenixPhilly on Dec 14, 2006 1:30 PM EST up 0 recs

No offense but

isn't "best shape of his life" way up there in the pantheon of all-time hoariest and least-meaningful baseball cliches? I always hear this, every spring training, about dozens of players, but I apply such a heavy discount that it's ultimately nearly worthless, as far as I'm concerned.

Granted, it's not totally devoid of meaning - if someone says that, it's fair to assume they're not a) seriously injured or b) badly overweight. Just the fact that they're not coming in with an excuse or a tale to tell is, in a modest way, a kind of indicator, if only a negative one.

But really - what could that even mean? How could a mid-30's guy really be in better shape than he was at 21? Of course it's possible for the general population, but for a professional athlete? Why would they even remember exactly what shape they were in eight or ten or twelve years earlier?

The phrase could have real meaning, I'll grant, for players in their late 20's who have always been in pretty good shape but have turned it up a notch and are now even better - but as a rule, the phrase is never applied to players like that. It's only applied to guys who have been injured and/or somewhat out of shape, and are now well into their careers.

This is Wilkerson's age-30 season. It's nice that he's working with a trainer; with luck, he'll approximate the shape he was in in his mid-20s.

by The Navigator on Dec 15, 2006 2:55 PM EST up 0 recs

Two most important facts from this piece

"[T]he average number of starts made by the opening day starting five is 113.5."
"The most starts that a NL East team has gotten from its starting five in the last three years was 137 by the Braves in 2004."

Those numbers are incredibly telling. I know it's a colossal amount of work, but I'd love to see data like this for all of baseball over a longer period of time. Anyone know if any of the research sites have done this?

by David S. Cohen on Dec 14, 2006 3:13 PM EST 0 recs

Wow.

I find these stats amazing. I never realized how many starts do not go to the 5 starters. Good piece.

by Homer on Dec 14, 2006 5:05 PM EST up 0 recs

ONE POSSIBLE REFERENCE SOURCE

This may not be exactly what you are looking for, but if you go to www.baseball-research.com and click on: teams-Phillies-1980, under the pitchers records you will see that the top five starters (Carlton - Ruthven - Walk - Lerch - Christenson) totaled 134 of the team's 162 starts = 83%, much higher than the 70% standard of today,, going by the 113.5 out of 162 figure.

by robbybonfire on Dec 14, 2006 6:13 PM EST up 0 recs

Counterpoint

While I Agree that is it rare for a teams 5 starts to each make 30+ starts. The main argument I have is that teams value established starters like Lieber and that many of those teams lack younger pitchers that can step into the rotation. I think if you had Happ Segovia and Lieber all in the Rotation the numbers would be similar and Lieber wouldnt stand out in any meaningful way. However if we can get a good setup man or a good outfielder for him then we should pull the trigger because we have options to step in when a pitcher goes down

Remember Chin ming Wang didnt get his shoit until the establish Pavavno went down and he led the AL in wins last year. Lieber has value but its with other teams more so.

by Bfitz on Dec 14, 2006 10:27 PM EST 0 recs

Two thoughts

First, name the last team that went into a season with 6 starting pitchers? There is considerable debate about the efficacy of a six man rotation, and I know that the Yankees, the Cardinals, and the As have tinkered with it at times during the season. Nonetheless, you have a rotation where no starter has any significant bullpen experience. Lieber will be able to draw you the very thing you need - a quality bullpen arm. It may not happen in December or January, but, by the time spring training rolls around and teams assess their needs, Lieber will have value. Keep in mind that, in this free agency market, Lieber also has significant contractual value.

Second, please identify for me the solid crop of AAA pitchers you are referring to in your post. Gio Gonzalez - gone. Daniel Haigwood - gone. Hamels - in rotation. Mathieson - a soft-tosser? Yoel Hernandez - maybe. Brian Manzone is 30 years old. Brito - ineffective, though there is hope. Jeremy Cummings? Do not overvalue the Phillies farm system - it is encouraging at low levels, but that quality bullpen arm is not available from AA or AAA.

Toz

by Toz on Dec 15, 2006 9:27 AM EST 0 recs

AAA pitchers

Eude Brito
Fabio Castro
Justin Germano
J.A. Happ
Yoel Hernandez

by PhoenixPhilly on Dec 15, 2006 9:41 AM EST up 0 recs

AAA pitchers

Castro will be up, not in AAA, as he was all year last year. Brito is a starter and will stay in AAA. The other guys are in Lakewood if I remember correctly, and none are above B prospects, at least as of right now.

I'm not trying to denigrate the ultimate point, or the lower end of the farm system - I am merely pointing out that there is still a need for a quality arm in the pen, and Lieber is the guy who can get you that without hurting your rotation.

Toz

by Toz on Dec 15, 2006 10:16 AM EST up 0 recs

Rebuttal

First, Castro may or may not be with the big club all season. He had to be last year because he was a Rule 5 selection. I believe I've read that the Phillies think he needs more seasoning before he's ready for significant major league exposure (a rare instance of a time when I agree with them).

As to the remaining guys: Happ started last year in Clearwater, where he excelled. He was promoted midseason to Reading, where he again excelled. He'll almost certainly start in AAA.

Germano spent the entirety of last season in AAA between Louisville and S/WB, and did quite well. Unless the Phillies keep him for long relief, he'll probably start 2007 in Ottawa.

Hernandez also was in AAA, although I'm guessing he must have been hurt most of the year, as thebaseballcube only shows him having thrown 10 1/3 innings.

By the way, you previously mentioned Mathieson as a soft-tosser. This certainly isn't true. He threw mid-90s, touching the high 90s at times. Assuming he rehabs from TJ surgery well, he should, if anything, throw harder when healthy again.

by phatj on Dec 15, 2006 12:01 PM EST up 0 recs

Rule 5

Rule 5 players can be returned to the original club at half-the acquisition price, if the original club opts to take him back. You really have to question the wisdom of wasting a roster spot on someone you cannot entrust with any responsibility in pressure situations.

Of course the Phillies feel Castro needs more "seasoning." He was all of 21 in 2006, and they treated him like a leper. Howard and Utley at age 23 also "needed more seasoning." Even Richie Allen and Mike Schmidt at age 22 "needed more seasoning."

It seems the stew is just right if the player is over 30, and when you arrive at Jamie Moyer - Jeff Conine country the "mentoring" phase kicks in. Phillies ownership and management should get out of the baseball business and open a restaurant,

by robbybonfire on Dec 15, 2006 1:20 PM EST up 0 recs

Ugh

Will you please either find something new to talk about or just shut up?

Apparently, you believe that any young player should skip directly from high school to the majors, in order to have the greatest career arc. There is no need for seasoning. Young players come prepackaged and fully developed with all skills needed to play in the big leagues.

Furthermore, upon reaching the age of 30 or so, all players suddenly lose the ability to play baseball. Nevermind that they still seem to be able to swing, run, catch & throw in a manner which convincingly reproduces that of their younger counterparts. It's all a sham. They're faking it, and in fact have at least one foot in the grave. Get them off your team before they steal any more money.

In case my sarcastic tone doesn't get this across, I consider these both inexcusably silly notions.

by phatj on Dec 15, 2006 2:03 PM EST up 0 recs

PHILLIES SHAFTED CASTRO, RIGHT AND LEFT

We know Charlie Manuel doesn't like Fabio Castro, essentially because he is young and effective, and because there were too many old and ineffective (but "experienced") Rick White, Arthur Rhodes, Rheal Cormier, and Ryan Franklin scrap heap losers to keep throwing out there in "clutch" situations, in 2006. So that the bulk of Castro's 23.1 IP; 1.54 ERA; 4.63 H/9; and 2.3 W/9 contribution last season was effectively wasted in mop-up roles.

Yes, the K-rate is low at 5 per 9 innings, so NL batters may figure him out the second time around. It appears the Phillies are thinking he was a fluke in 2006 and can be had in any deal for the price of a Kleenex tissue. It just seems that if you are an old, crappy pitcher you can plan on having a long career in Philadelphia, but if you are young and promising you are bait for the next downside veteran we can bring in here to expand our "mentoring" faculty. Expect Castro to be gone by spring training. Either that, or he will not make the parent roster to start the season. That are just going to jack him around until they ruin him.

by robbybonfire on Dec 15, 2006 10:39 AM EST 0 recs

AAA Rotation

Zach Segovia (16 wins in 3 levels)
-You might not be as familiar with him because he had TJ but this second rounder has come all the way back and will be as good as Lieber next year a fraction of the cost

JA Happ (Never Posted an ERA over 3 in the minors) He's a lefty with good control and good BB/K ratios.

Fabio Castro
Justin Germano

My problem with many of these posts is I feel everyone falls in love with the idea of having an established starters waiting to step in. It doesnt work like that. Young pitchers can and do pitch just as well as old wily crafty veterans like Jon Lieber.

by Bfitz on Dec 15, 2006 1:00 PM EST 0 recs

well...

I guess the whole point of PhoenixPhilly's research is to see whether or not that's true. I'd like to see more data about it, because I tend to agree with the (more or less conventional) wisdom you espouse with letting call-ups do the job when a starter goes down. But when looking at the Phils over the last 5 years, PhoenixPhilly found that the difference between good staffs and bad ones was limiting the number of starts by call-ups (i.e. fewer call-up starts = lower starter ERA). When call-ups do badly, not only do they hurt the team with the innings they pitch, but they tax the bullpen too...knowing you might have to get 6 or 7 innings out of the bullpen any time you throw a Floyd or Abbot out is kind of depressing.

Of course, the data has shown that some call-ups do very well in the emergency starter role: Robinson Tejada in '05 comes to mind. But more often than not, those kind of starts are terrible ones. Just look at the 2006 line: 17 starts for Madson, 12 for Wolf, 11 for Floyd, 8 for Mathieson...yikes!

Now it has been competently argued here that last year's woes were the result of not having even 5 truly prepared starters, and that replacement-level guys had to fill in the #4 spot at times as well as #5.

Still, thinking about 2007:

Myers
Hamels
Garcia
Eaton
Moyer

If that's your 5 starters, how confident are you about getting 30 starts from each? I'll rate my own confidence of each starter getting 30 starts, which I admit is kind of arbitrary:

Myers - 80%
Hamels - 75%
Garcia - 85%
Eaton - 60%
Moyer - 35%

Between age and ineffectiveness, I don't have a hard time imagining scenarios where Moyer doesn't stick in the rotation. Chances are at least one of the 1-4 guys goes down at some point, too. In other words, I think it's not unlikely that we might have to replace more than one starter for some stretches of the season, and wouldn't it be nice to have a spare league-avereage innings eater around for that?

Of course, Liber wouldn't be my ideal guy to do it; I agree with PhoenixPhilly when he expressed a favorable opinion towards acquiring Miguel Batista, who has been an effective reliever and league-average starter, and could possibly fill in two roles for us ("veteran relief", decent spot starting option).

You probably have to think about this on a team by team basis. It's sort of like making an insurance calculation. Anyway, I don't think keeping a steady 6th starter on board is unreasonable for the Phils this year.

by BRich on Dec 15, 2006 1:31 PM EST up 0 recs

Segovia

Totally forgot about him. Yeah, he is very good. I saw him pitch a bunch in the AFL. I think he might be a candidate for the pen next year.

by PhoenixPhilly on Dec 15, 2006 5:08 PM EST up 0 recs

YOU NAILED IT!

Thank you for your astute final paragraph observation which is right on the money.

by robbybonfire on Dec 15, 2006 1:22 PM EST 0 recs

PHILADELPHIA SPORTS SCENE SITUATION

The PHILLIES need new ownership; a fireball, aggressive GM who is not afraid to clean out dead-wood on the roster, or hold out for equal value in trade discussions; a manager who takes naps on his own time - not during games, and who DISDAINS the sacrifice bunt from slots 1-8, and who does not allow his hot dog SS, or anyone else, to harbor a fatalistic inspiration to attempt steals of third base on his own; as well as a house-cleaning of the staid, stale, Neanderthal front office (talking to you, Mike).
The EAGLES need a new head coach and a player personnel director who will draft a BIG, short-yardage running back, and stop taking trenches-grunts in the first round of the draft.
The 76ers need a new GM; a new coach who is not an ex-jock and a linear thinker; and need to get the Iverson deal DONE. (A second-hand toothpick would be fair compensation - just do it!)
I cannot address the FLYERS knowledgeably because I am all wrapped-up in the problems besetting my beloved New York Rangers.

by robbybonfire on Dec 15, 2006 1:40 PM EST 0 recs

WHICH WAY RYAN MADSON?

As I have stated, the Phillies won 11 of Madson's 17 starts in 2006, and he outpitched his starter adversary in 10 of those 17 games. Accordingly, Madson does not deserve to be linked with lesser performing spot-starters.

Yes, we can all make a case that he left a great deal to be desired in the bullpen - the last two years in fact. In 2005, when Rollins was on a tear and the team charged down the homestretch, just missing the playoff mark by one game, Madson was blowing up in the pen. If you check you will see that his ERA climbed a full point, in September, 2005, from three to four.

This is why I have repeatedly made the case for Madson either being a starter in Philadelphia, or being moved. Predictably, in the face of all the evidence supporting my recommendation, most disagree with me, which does not invalidate the documented record that Madson is a better starter than he is a reliever. In fact, most joining in the Madson discussion fail to even differentiate between the two vastly different roles, in terms of what Madson brings to the mix. This is myopic folly.

by robbybonfire on Dec 15, 2006 3:31 PM EST 0 recs

Huh?

Ryan Madson had an ERA of 6.28 as a starter. Here are his game logs. It wasn't like he just blew up in one or two games and that ruined his ERA. He did an great job in '04 in the pen and a decent job in '05. Maybe he would make a good starter, but the numbers sure don't suggest it.

On a side point, why is it so important to be right? My reason for writing this column wasn't to be right, just to put a thought out there with some new information. I'm not totally convinced we should keep Lieber, but I made a case for it and enjoy hearing other's opinions as well. Isn't this site supposed to rise above the level of WIP?

by PhoenixPhilly on Dec 15, 2006 5:20 PM EST up 0 recs

Side point is the main point...

Not to be all Rodney King about it, but I too would prefer to keep things civil and rational here. Unfortunately sports talk does attract people who are only satisfied when there is a winner and a loser. Of course, the winner is the guy who shouts loudest.

by Chris R on Dec 15, 2006 5:56 PM EST up 0 recs

Yikes

Madson, 2006:

Starter - 90.1 IP, 6.29 ERA, 124 H, 37 BB, 61 K, 15 HR, league hit .329 / .400 / .531, or roughly equivalent to Jason Bay (.396 OBP ./ .532 SLG)

Reliever - 44 IP, 4.50 ERA, 52 H, 13 BB, 38 K, 5 HR, league hit .304 / .356 / .485, or roughly equivalent to Jose Reyes (.354 / .487).

As a reliever, he allowed (per inning) fewer runs, fewer hits, fewer walks, fewer homers, with more strikeouts. The average hitter facing him became an all-star, rather than MVP candidate.

Career:

Starter: 6.82 ERA
Reliever: 3.27 ERA

by Shore on Dec 16, 2006 1:02 AM EST up 0 recs

YOUR FRAME OF REFERENCE IS OBTUSE

Way off the mark you are! First of all, relievers are indisputedly MORE EFFECTIVE in all the categories you cite, than are starters. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT? Therefore ALL stats which throw all pitchers into the same mix are heavily skewed in favor of relief pitchers. This is precisely why I match LIKE ENTITIES in my research - to obtain an unbiased read-out, and to reach a real, rather than a nominal bottom-line grade for these athletes. So that I match starters vs. starters; relievers vs. relievers; shortstops vs. shortstops; leadoff batters vs. leadoff batters in the same game, etc., with all of them playing under the same conditions.

Applying a "face-value" statistic laymen like yourself love to access and quote - look at the seasonal ERA figure for the 10 lowest-ERA relievers vs. the 10 lowest-ERA starters, in any league, in any year. You will find Mariano Rivera putting up a 1.80, or thereabouts, and the other leading relievers in the 2-2.75 range. You will also find the leading starters dotting the 3-3.50 range.

All the time here, we have people falling all over starters with 4+ ERA's as "innings eaters" and "solid fifth or six starters," etc.

Now do us all a favor - go back and tabulate Madson's innings pitched and runs allowed vs. the composite innings pitched and runs allowed for all opposition relief pitchers appearing in the games in which Madson relieved - and share it with us. The insight you get from looking at a picture right-side up, rather than upside-down, will enlighten you.

by robbybonfire on Dec 16, 2006 7:37 AM EST up 0 recs

CONTEXT VS. THE SURREAL

Madson's Run Average (considering all runs, earned as well as unearned) as a starter, in the context of the generally high run-scoring environment of most of his games, bested that of the majority (10 of 17) of starters he was matched up with, in 2006. I am neither a proponent, nor opposed to stats like ERA or run average, but rather, consider them and ALL stats in the context of total runs scored in a game, and individual match-up performance at all positions.

So that when a starter outperforms his opposite number, he has done his job, and put his team in a high percentage position to win the game. The Phillies winning 11 of Madson's 17 starts should inspire you to dig more deeply than just surface appearances.

To my mind, this is one of the most fascinating and interesting discussions about baseball. I refer to the debate as to whether a pitcher who loses, say, a 3-2 complete game, pitched better or worse than a pitcher who wins a 5-4 complete game decision. The 3-2 game loser allowed 3 runs; whereas the 5-4 winner allowed 4 runs, BUT - baseball is about WINNING, foremost, so it has long been my (much maligned) position that the pitcher allowing 4 of 9 total runs (44%) performed better than the pitcher who allowed 3 of 5 total runs (60%), adjusting for innings pitched in most games, of course.

Look - you have 11-9 games and you have 2-1 games in baseball, and to fail to find, or even seek a common denominator, and to just take every game at face value as though there are no variables such as wind, park dimensions, umpire strike zone bias for or against pitchers, day games, night games, hot weather, cold weather, light air, heavy air, home city altitude, hitting background, glare, etc. - well, it just smacks of surrealism as a religion to be in denial that these elements directly impact the scoring output in a game.

The indoor sports - basketball and hockey, are constants for playing conditions; the outdoor sports, baseball and football, are variable-impacted, all the way Have you never seen a football game played in deep mud in freezing conditions? Or a football game played in balmy 60 degree weather on astro-turf? The differences are striking, like night and day, not subtle.

I made reference here to the fact that with the season on the line for the ballclub in September of 2005, Madson tanked. Madson's September relief collapse; Rollins' abysmal first two-thirds of the season leadoff OBA; the ever-combustible Rheal Cormier; along with Terry Adams of the 13-run ERA in 16 appearances, are the primary reasons the Phillies went home after 162 games, that year. You cannot do the research, as I did, and dispute that fact that Madson blew-up the bullpen with the 2005 season on the line. That emphatically negates whatever positive contribution he made, prior to that time - until such time as someone can convince me that superficial individual stats trump team results, as the bottom line.

Don't get me wrong - I like Madson more than most, and would love to see him elevated above Moyer on the starter depth chart. How clubs deploy their talent is critical to their success or failure. Madson has been disgracefully mis-deployed.

by robbybonfire on Dec 15, 2006 6:45 PM EST 0 recs

awesome

Similarly, a pitcher who gives up 1 run in a 1-0 win gives up 100% of the runs in his game! Those are the worst pitchers ever. It would be so much better to have the pitcher who gives up 17 runs in a 28-17 win! That's only 38% of the runs in the game. That guy's an all star.

by taco pal on Dec 15, 2006 6:56 PM EST up 0 recs

WE UNDERSTAND LOSING IMPRESSES YOU

Great, you prefer your guy leaving a game on the LOSING side of a 3-2 score - on the hook, in other words. And I prefer my guy departing of the LONG side of a 5-4 score.

You, of course didn't intend to, but you made my point. Of course I want to be on the long end of an 11-run blow out. And tell us, please, at what point is a blow-out victory negated by too many runs being scored in a game?

And of course you find merit in being on the short side of a low scoring game, all the while ducking directly responding to my enumeration of the major variables which determine whether a game is low scoring, or an exploding scoreboard special.

Las Vegas "players" think out of the box. Your thinking is so rigid, inflexible, dogmatic, out-dated, and simplistic, for this sabermetrics era, I am truly embarrassed for you. You express yourself like someone who was a fan in Stan Musial's rookie season.

Share with us, if you will, ONE original concept or statistical measurement evaluation tool you have added to the sabermetric, or advanced-discussion dialogue. This should be interesting.

See buddy, I put myself out there, on the line and up front, and take the hits, everyday. 'Safety-first" is somebody else's motto, not mine. You go hide in the corner and just take little pot shots and blow darts at those who are not afraid of the glare. Where you are concerned, does the word "DULL" resonate?

So let's hear from you - what have you got to offer besides an "A" on your freshman class debate club report card?

by robbybonfire on Dec 15, 2006 8:45 PM EST 0 recs

grumble...

I wish you would stop describing yourself as a sabermetrician, because the whole purpose of sabermetrics is to consider only the variables that are within a player's control. This "two-way stats" thing you're selling is NOT a good sabermetric evaluation of a pitcher's effectiveness. You are right about the usefulness of two-way stats in evaluating basketball players, but it just doesn't work for baseball.

You've cited Bill James before, so I'm surprised that you're ignoring the crux of his contribution to the stat community. When it comes to pitchers, according to James, the most important things to measure are walks, strikeouts, and home runs, the only three outcomes that are not defense-dependent. Beyond that, you look at batted-ball data (i.e. groundball rate, fly ball/HR percentage) to see what happens, on average, when the pitcher yields a ball in play. Wins (or "starter wins" for that matter) are a terrible measurement of effectiveness, because more than half of the variables that cause a team to win or lose a game are out of the pitcher's control. Trying to measure a pitcher with any reference to his own team's offense is just not sabermetrically sound. Let's get this straight: a pitcher's job is to limit runs scored. Beyond that, "winning" is out of his control. It is better to measure a pitcher's ability to limit runs scored than it is to measure how often he was the "better pitcher".

If you're really insistent on having some measurement grounded in "winning", consider using stats like Win Shares, Win Shares Above Bench, or even Value Over Replacement Player. These are good sabermetric stats, because they measure a player based entirely on their own performance and not that of their team, their league, their park. Go over to The Hardball Times to get a rundown on those.

Or another stat that takes game context into consideration, and how much each player helps his team win or lose, is Win Probability Added, or WPA. This is the most inventive thing I've found to try to quantify "clutchiness" or being a "winner" or a "true Yankee" or whatever other intangabullshit ESPN guys love to talk about. It follows each player's in-context contribution to a team's win probability. So for example, if you're down 12-9 with two outs in the bottom of the 9th inning and hit a grand slam, your team's win probability goes from close to zero to 100 percent, and you've added about 0.99 to your team's WPA. If you hit a grand slam in top of the first inning, your team's win probabiltiy goes from 50 to 80 (or something like that) and you've added 0.3 to your team's WPA. Dig?

Okay, let's look at Ryan Madson again. Win Probability Added? -1.05. Every 1, by the way, is a win or a loss. So in these terms, based on Madson's in-game, play-by-play performance (i.e. not based on his season totals), tracking his contribution to the Phils' chance of winning in games he pitched, he lost one game for the Phils all by himself. Ryan Madson's Win Shares Above Bench? 0. Zero. That means he contributed nothing above bench-level performance.

There are some stats that you could refer to that would actually strengthen your argument, like Madson's fielding-independent pitching total (4.93) being significantly lower than his ERA, which would mean that the defense hurt his stats.

But if Madson is such a "winner" and Jon Lieber is such a loser, let's look at Lieber's FIP, which in case you're curious is 4.60. So the defense hurt him too - not as much as it hurt Madson - but he was still a more effective pitcher. AND, as you argued so passionately before, it is easier to put up good numbers in the bullpen than as a starter, so Madson's season totals are INFLATED by his time in the 'pen. Finally, pitching Win Shares: Madson 4; Lieber 7.4. Win Shares Above Bench: Madson 0; Lieber 1.

And while it's fine and dandy to try out new ways of measuring players, you don't get points for novelty if the results are completely out of whack. The Phils won a majority of Ryan Madson's starts IN SPITE OF his pitching performance, not because of it. He contributed NEGATIVELY to the Phils' chances of winning games he pitched in. That you are insisting otherwise, and calling everyone around you stupid at the same time, is pretty confounding. Your one-liners and cheap shots are not welcome in this forum. We also don't care how revolutionary you think your ideas are or where you came from or what you do with your spare time. Make sure you're actually talking about people's arguments when you post.

Also, to echo other sentiments here, insisting that you're right doesn't make it so. And besides, we're here to discuss things and throw ideas around, not to browbeat each other into submission when we disagree. Let's try to stay above the talk-radio screamfests and insult-a-thons, eh?

by BRich on Dec 17, 2006 12:58 PM EST up 0 recs

BP's prospect list

Kevin Goldstein has a list of the Phils' top 10 prospects--and it's pretty depressing. JA Happ is projected as a back-end starter at best, and neither Segovia nor Germano are on the list. I don't think this changes the thinking on Lieber too much--if you can get something helpful, fine--but it does put a damper on expectations for the guys the team has in AAA.

by enterpsmith on Dec 15, 2006 9:55 PM EST 0 recs

I saw that too

and was considering (still am, in fact) at least posting a diary about it. The omission of Segovia struck me as strange. I don't read that as determinative, just because a prospect "expert" for all MLB is simply unlikely to know as much about the Phils' guys as someone who watches the team more closely and specifically.

OTOH, some of the comments suggested to me that he's been talking with front-office staff on background, which isn't surprising given both the nature of those articles and, at this point, how much cred BP likely has in the industry even amongst the more, shall we say, traditionally-minded teams. So I wonder if there's an indication that the org isn't so into Segovia.

At least Dallass Green isn't out there talking about how Segovia might be okay if he can fit his girth through the dugout entrance. Yet.

by dajafi on Dec 16, 2006 12:14 PM EST up 0 recs