Chan WHO Park?

by Matt Swartz on Mar 30, 2009 10:28 PM EDT Comment 18 comments

I have spent this Spring Training rooting for JA Happ to earn the 5th spot in the rotation. It is not that I wanted Chan Ho Park to fail, but I have generally felt that Spring Training numbers are overvalued in making roster decisions. I have generally believed that the sample size is too small to base any decisions on, and so I thought Happ was the better option and wanted him to succeed and Park to fail. After all, Chan Ho Park faced 8,074 hitters in the major leagues, demonstrating that he is in fact mediocre. Right? Maybe not.

When we say things like "small sample size", we need to make sure that it's not just an empty sabermetric talking point. What a person means when they say "small sample size" is that the resulting outcome is within two standard errors of what would be expected on average. As the size of a standard error is inversely related to the sample size, the idea is that the range of possible outcomes is too vast to trust that any one outcome represents the truth.

So, as I thought about all of this, I took a look at Chan Ho Park's spring numbers. His ERA is quite low at 2.53, but so is JA Happ's at 3.15. But then I looked at Chan Ho Park's peripheral numbers and something shocked me.

Hitters faced: 85

Strikeouts: 25

Walks: 2

That seemed extreme. After all, that is 29.4% K/PA and 2.4% BB/PA. In his career, he has 19.7% K/PA and 10.6% BB/PA. I checked for statistical significance-- in other words, I checked to see what the odds were of someone with a true skill level of 19.7% K/PA and 10.6% BB/PA getting 29.4% K/PA or more and getting 2.4% BB/PA or less by random chance. As it turns out, the odds of being 9.7% above his K/PA by luck when his skill level remained the same is 1.2%. The odds of being 8.2% below his BB/PA by luck is 0.7%.

These are both statistically significant-- very statistically significant. What this means is that something is very, very probably different. Some of this could be the quality of hitters faced or the level of competition of the hitters he does face, but it does seem to imply that something larger is different. A K/BB ratio of 12.5 for Park and just 2.33 for Happ is a huge difference. In general, I tend to believe that the team would be better off with a guy with league minimum salary anchoring the back of the rotation, since he would be able to do so for the next couple of years, but there is something different-- something statistically significantly different-- about this new Chan Ho Park. But who is he?

0 recs | Comment 18 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don’t think it can hurt to go with Park until(if?) he busts and shows the Park of old. And if you remember, Park 1.0 was actually an OK pitcher. We have Happ as backup.

Plus, I’m not entirely confident that we can ride Moyer for another 30+ starts again. Maybe, but who knows?

Huge Tiny Mistake

by pacino on Mar 30, 2009 11:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I kind of think this debate is going to become moot once one of the top 4 starters goes down with an injury and we’ll have both Happ and Park pitching.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Mar 30, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Myers loses his head and gets send down again ; )

by FuquaManuel on Mar 30, 2009 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Carrasco could be ready before the first starter goes down though. There’s also a chance that we make another LidleMoyerLohseBlanton mid-season acquisition at some point during the year too. I’d agree there’s some guys that miss starts, but there’s people that could step into the rotation and deserve a spot too.

by Matt Swartz on Mar 30, 2009 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Having spare parts on hand is a luxury

Happ plus Carrasco (and, lest we forget….Kendrick) is a real luxury. I mean that on Kendrick — he could serve as a spot starter/long mop-up guy if the staff gets pinched (obviously that’s not ideal or a scenario I’d like to see, but I’d rather see that than having a prospect get traded).

Myers has consistently demonstrated his inconsistency. Hamels always has me nervous vis a vis injury possibilities. Moyer is either going to eat someone’s brain to prove that, yes, he is undead, or he will wear out at some point. Blanton may eat himself to death (one wafer thin mint?), hopefully not on brains, unless Moyer gets to him, but if Moyer does convert him into a zombie, that may be good as long as he demonstrates Moyer-like zombie behavior. Gratuitous link of the day: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjMiDZIY1bM

Having a few guys that can be plugged in when a starter gets an injury is huge. To some extent, I think that they should at least consider keeping Hamels on the shelf an extra week or two and let Park/Happ duke it out for another start or two.

Even during the pennant race last year, there were moments when I was wondering WTF Hamels was still out on the mound. Why not give bring him along slowly this year, especially since it seems like these two sort of have hot hands right now? I wouldn’t mind seeing some extra caution on Hamels, given the Verducci issues potentially in play on him from last year going into this year.

Remember the Phitans

by RememberthePhitans on Mar 31, 2009 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

K/BB

In his best years, Park was around 2.3:1 for K:BB. What he’s doing now is excellent, but it’s so far from his norm that it’s hard for me to believe that it’s due to a change in talent/ability as opposed to some external factor (like competition faced). But, I’d be happy to go with this as the reason to pick Park as the fifth starter and see what happens.

by David S. Cohen on Mar 30, 2009 11:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

special vitamins?

Huge Tiny Mistake

by pacino on Mar 31, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Put the young kid in

"In a couple of weeks or a month, I'll be excited about this team," Dawkins said. "I've got to get used to saying that -- I'm a Bronco." Then he paused. "I'll tell you one thing -- I'll always be an Eagle."

by exitfare on Mar 30, 2009 11:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Or not

Looks like Park may be up to something

by exitfare on Mar 31, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it’s hard to take S/T stats at face value, ever, but 25/2 K/BB ratio is pretty eye-popping. only explanation I can think of is the stories about Moyer teaching him a new change-up. If his change-up has suddenly become a better pitch, that would account for the performance discrepancy, as it’d neutralize his problems vs. lefties. to use your stats:

vs. RHB: 23.2% K, 8.8% BB, 2.3% HR
vs. LHB: 16.2% K, 12.5% BB, 3.1% HR

If he’s lost his platoon split to any degree, that’d explain a lot of his success. Doubt it often happens that fast though, just look at Kendrick’s attempts to master the change.

by bugbear on Mar 31, 2009 1:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Park has made it a lot harder to root against him, and at this point in the spring it’s pretty much impossible to wave away his results as the product of just facing kids and quad-A types, or the pitchers being ahead of the hitters, or anything like that.

I wonder if they would consider trading him, assuming there’s interest.

by dajafi on Mar 31, 2009 1:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see how we’d possibly get anything for him—we’d be dangling a pitcher with no recent track record of success as a starter, and I doubt looking good in spring training would do much to increase the value of the return the Phillies received. if his improvement looks like it’s for real from a scouting perspective, I say give him a shot. there should be at least 15-20 starts for Happ over the season, at least, given the nature of starting pitching..

by bugbear on Mar 31, 2009 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The way I look at it is, Charlie and Amaro have to give the slot to Park, for the sake of their own integrity and credibility as workplace supervisors. They got him to sign based on the representation that there would be an open competition for the spot. They probably didn’t expect him to win it, but he did. If the truth was that the job was Happ’s to lose (i.e. that Happ would get it as long as it was close), well then that’s what they should have said to Park before they signed him.

Like everyone else, I have my doubts about Park being able to perform better than Happ over the course of a full season. But giving him the job now wouldn’t mean the team would be binding itself to sticking with him for a full season. They can track his progress and replace him if he begins to stumble. Even if it costs you a game down the line, it could very well gain you a game now just by virtue of the fact that even if Park isn’t for real he’s at least got the hot hand.

by taco pal on Mar 31, 2009 9:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Part of the mystery here may be that Park has never really been “mediocre” in his career. Rather, he’s basically had two careers. In his first career (1996-2001), he was an above average starting pitcher (and that’s even if you factor Dodger Stadium into the analysis). In his second career (2002-2006), he was horrible.

Lots of pitchers decline over the course of their careers for lots of reasons. But I think one can say with confidence that at least during Career #1, Park had the talent to perform at a high level in the major leagues (which you wouldn’t be able to say about someone who’s performed at a consistently mediocre level throughout his career). So, did he lose that ability permanently in Career #2 (because of age, injuries, etc.) or was it something else?

It’s at least notable that he didn’t have a gradual decline. Instead, he fell off a cliff in 2002, which was the same year he signed a huge, Boras-negotiated contract. So there’s at least a possibility that it was all mental. That he lost his drive to excel, and that sometime in the last two years he got it back.

I don’t think Park can keep up a 12.5 K/BB ratio for a whole year, but even if we were somehow able to get the 2000-2001 version of Park, that would be a real coup. (And by the way, he was pretty decent against lefties too back then.)

by taco pal on Mar 31, 2009 10:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s a good year to be the Phillies. When your biggest question mark is your 5th starter, things are good

by Cormican on Mar 31, 2009 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It reminds me of the situation that the Twins kept creating for themselves. Every time they had young pitchers vying for rotation spots, they’d sign guys like Livan Hernandez and Sidney Ponson to take jobs away from their young starters, and then would inevitably hand the jobs off after the veteran crashed and burned. The difference here is that Park appears to have more upside, and likely has value outside of starting. It’s a delicate situation, but I don’t think it’s “wrong” to start with Park as long as it’s just a 1 month trial, pending regular season results.

And Cormican is right, it’s pretty great to know that we have 7 starting pitchers who are better or have more upside than Eaton/Kendrick.

by bugbear on Mar 31, 2009 12:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs