Wrapping Both Sides of the Brain Around Chooch -- Part 1 (left brain)
by schmenkman on Sep 20, 2010 12:20 PM EDT
Email
PrintCarlos Ruiz's main contribution to the Phillies has been, and will continue to be, his defense and handling of the staff, but there have been a slew of stories in recent days about Chooch, and particularly his hitting. Of course we've been reporting on his offense throughout this season here at TGP (4/18, 5/5, 5/11, 6/3, and 7/11), and it's time for a more comprehensive update.
On August 15, 2009, Ruiz's career line looked like this (including the 2007 and 2008 postseasons):
.240/.330/.362 -- a .692 OPS in 1,158 PAs
He was closer to 31 than to 30, and he had built a reputation as one of the best fielding catchers in baseball. Any hitting was viewed as a bonus.
But in the period since 8/15/09, he has:
1) Along with Howard and Werth, led the Phillies 2009 playoff push
Many of the regulars were struggling at the end of '09. From Aug 15 though the end of the regular season, only three of the starting eight had an OPS over .800:
Howard 1.038, Ruiz 1.015, Werth .935
2) Had a great 2009 postseason, and solidified his reputation as Senor Octobre:
Phillies with the highest OPS in last year's playoffs and World Series:
Werth 1.129, Ruiz 1.082, Utley 1.072, Howard .968, Victorino .917
3) Has been one of the Phils' top 4 hitters in 2010, with many of the team's biggest hitting performances
Partly because of the injuries, but also due to aging and slumps, only two of the eight starting positions have shown any significant improvement in offense over 2009: 1) Polanco vs. Feliz, and 2) Carlos Ruiz.
Below is the 2010 ranking and comparison to '09 -- we'll use wOBA for this, as it's viewed as the better stat.
| 2009 | 2010 | %Chg | ||
| Werth | .382 | .389 | 2% | |
| Utley | .402 | .376 | -6% | |
| Howard | .393 | .370 | -6% | |
| Ruiz | .337 | .365 | 8% | |
| Victorino | .354 | .345 | -3% | |
| Ibanez | .379 | .343 | -9% | |
| Feliz/Pol. | .302 | .324 | 7% | |
| Rollins | .316 | .319 | 1% | |
| OVERALL | .340 | .328 | -4% |
Below are the top games by position players this season, in terms of Win Probability Added. As a reminder, WPA is calculated for each at bat by looking at how that AB changed the team's probabilty of winning the game. For example, for Werth's game yesterday, he recorded WPAs of -.042 and -.083 when he made outs, .048 and .100 on his singles, and .010 when he stole 3rd. His walk-off HR then added .652 (it increased the Phils' probability of winning from .348 to 1.000) for a total of .684.
Phillies hitters have had 10 individual games with WPAs over .400: Four of the 10 belong to Chooch:
| 1. Werth 9/19-Was | .684 | 3-5, 3 RBI, walk-off HR |
| 2. Rollins 6/23-Cle | .601 | 1-5, walk-off HR |
| 3. Howard 4/10-Hou | .583 | 2-4, triple, HR, 3 RBI |
| 4. Ruiz 8/12-LA | .539 | 3-5, 3 RBIs, walk-off double |
| 5. Ruiz 8/5-Fla | .506 | 3-5, 2 2B’s, HR in 10th |
| 6. Polanco 8/1-Was | .473 | 2-6, game winner in 11th |
| 7. Ruiz 5/4-StL | .454 | 2-3, 2B, walk-off HR in 10th |
| 8. Werth 4/24-Ari | .451 | 2-4, 2 solo HR's, including go-ahead run in the top of the 9th in 3-2 win |
| 9. Rollins 7/25-Col | .441 | 2-4, drives in tying run, scores winning run on WP |
| 10. Ruiz 5/10-Col | .430 | 4-5, HR (after this game, he led the NL in OBP and was 12th in OP) |
In short, since 8/15/09, Ruiz has been the 3rd best hitter on the team, with this line (including the '09 postseason):
.309/.414/.484 -- a .898 OPS in 565 PAs
His counting stats are not overwhelming over this period, but a .309 average with lots of doubles and walks is a potent combination. Extrapolated to 700 PAs, they start to look pretty impressive.
| PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO |
| 565 | 468 | 57 | 145 | 37 | 2 | 13 | 74 | 82 | 61 |
| per 700 | 580 | 71 | 180 | 46 | 2 | 16 | 92 | 102 | 76 |
Phillies' OPS since 8/15/09
1. Werth .926
2. Howard .918
3. Ruiz .898
4. Utley .845
5. Ibanez .792
6. Victorino .765
7. Rollins .698
8. Feliz/Polanco .686
Among all catchers in 2010
There are 20 catchers in baseball this year with 350+ PAs. Chooch is...
- 5th in OPS: Posey .891, Soto .890, Mauer .880, Posada .846, Ruiz .843, McCann .842
- 6th in wOBA: Soto .385, Posey .381, Mauer.376, Posada .370, McCann .367, Ruiz .365
Among all catchers since Aug 15, 2009
I don't have wOBA over this period, but Chooch is...
- 2nd in OPS: Mauer .902, Ruiz .898, Posada .868, Posey .862, Soto .840, McCann .836
(as an aside, in a previous draft of this post with data through 9/17, it was Ruiz .902, Mauer .901)
Caveats
1) Sustainability: while it's been more than a year since 8/15/09, it's been less than a full season for Chooch because of his frequent days off. It's reasonable to say that he's been as effective as he has partly because Manuel has kept him fresh by resting him every few days, but that's a topic for another day.
His BABIP through 8/14/09 was .256. Since then, it's been .330. So is it luck? It's possible. But it should be noted that in his last year in AAA in 2006, Ruiz had this line in 423 PAs: .307/.389/.505 (.894 OPS) and a .393 wOBA. His BABIP that year was .324.
2) Is there selection bias here? Sure. But last August I would have never thought that any amount of tortured selection bias would put Ruiz in the conversation as one of the best-hitting catchers over an extended period, let alone a year-long stretch.
Bottom Line
He's been great this year, and in fact he's been great since turning it on in mid-August '09. We don't know if he can maintain this level of offense, but if he can, he will have made himself one of the elite all-around catchers in baseball.
128 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We loves chooch
we also loves the jump
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 12:22 PM EDT reply actions
My suggestions is after the first or second paragraph in which you establish the tenor/thurst of your article. The ‘post jump’ lines allows more front page articles to exist. To each their own I guess but to me, the majority of the article should be after the jump where the ‘front page’ stuff establishes what the article is truly about
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Not sure how the trends go but it’s only his 4th year as the full time catching starter (though it’s likely he’ll hit a career high in appearances and starts this year), might it just the natural maturation of his career?
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
It may also be luck, as in he may have had piss poor BABIP luck early in his MLB career. .254 BABIP is pretty low. .320-.330 seems reasonable to me, and not extreme good luck.
If i did my math right – league average BABIP tends to hover around 285 (without any qualifying plate appearances)
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought it was more .290-.300, but .285 is in that ballpark, so to speak. If I had more time I’d try to estimate where Chooch’s BABIP should be based on Line Drives %, Ground balls, etc.
This is based on all plate appearances and my own math (i believe the exact number was like 288) from pitchFX (which isn’t entirely accurate and this year seems to be having problems with angels home games, or dodgers, i forget which one)
I haven’t looked at it in months to review my calculations but i’m pretty sure i had it right at the time and 2008, 2009 and 2010 to date all worked out around 288
This was league wide plate appearances, including pitchers and such :)
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The difference might be from including vs. excluding pitchers. I think pitchers have a lower BABIP than regular hitters which isn’t luck.
As I was writing :) I include pitchers because I don’t when you download pitchFX there isn’t a positionality added. You could write a script creatively that would exclude pitchers, but it would exclude anyone who had pitched all season which in blow out games can sometimes include position players who should be counted.
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Ruiz’s LD% is way up in 2010:
18% 2007
16% 2008
15% 2009
21% 2010
he’s also steadily increased his walk rate and P/PA for as long as he’s been in the majors, which suggests some maturation in pitch selection (and suggests that his high OBP is at least partly his own doing, not just opposing pitchers):
9.8% 3.56 2007
11.8% 3.85 2008
12.4% 4.01 2009
13.5% 4.26 2010
by perfectdepth on Sep 20, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe the walk rate, but the LD% indicators seem to indicate flukishness don’t they? 2 consecutive years of dcreasing LD rate following by a substantial increase this year exceed career highs?
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I should have qualified, that if he can sustain the LD rate then it supports that he made adjustments that lead to the higher BABIP. If his LD rate regresses next year, then, yes, some luck was definitely giving him an elevated BABIP.
Good point.
well, I wouldn’t say that 16% to 15% necessarily represents a declining trend, but nonetheless 2010 is a pretty significant change. that will certainly be something to watch for in the future.
by perfectdepth on Sep 20, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I was using baseball-reference; I assume they calculate it differently.
by perfectdepth on Sep 20, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
from looking at the numbers, the difference is probably home runs. I don’t know enough to say whether Fangraphs or B-R is a better source in this case.
by perfectdepth on Sep 20, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps, but I’d hope that he could top that number next year, as he did miss a little time to injury this year.
I’m still shocked that for a guy who doesn’t run remarkably well (decent for a catcher though) and puts good wood on the ball, and bats low in the lineup, that he doesn’t GIDP more often. Chooch is the anti-rally killer.
I was listening to the Fangraphs podcast today and they brought up a good point about BABIP. Any time anyone sees an increase in BABIP, it is automatically assumed to be luck. While I agree with the premise that luck plays a factor in BABIP, I don’t really like luck being thrown out every time BABIP is brought up. Sometimes it is a change in approach and I think the quote was ‘a double in the gap today is going to be a double in the gap tomorrow’. I guess that is where watching the games come in, which is obviously hard to do across the entire MLB.
Any thoughts on this?
Batters have some limited control over BABIP so it definitely isn’t all luck for them. It’s just that you need to wait a few years to get a very large sample in order to see if they can do it consistently /morgan. Tony Gwynn, for instance, had a super-high BABIP his whole career.
Also, you’re right that BABIP doesn’t necessarily mean luck even for pitchers. It usually means unsustainablility, but that’s different. For instance, a given pitcher might be able to post a low BABIP by doing something smart with his approach. That won’t be sustainable, but not because it’s just luck. Rather, batters will adjust to whatever the pitcher is doing and bring his BABIP back up to a more normal number. Doesn’t mean he didn’t earn it while it lasted.
Now this is one of my biggest gripes with sabermetrics. I love these stats and I use them but whenever you read someone who is a big believer in these stats, they never seem to believe a player can get worse or better.
Any increase or decrease in a stat is explained by one of the following reasons:
- Small sample size
- Luck
- ‘It will regress to the mean’
They never seem to believe that a player can just get better or change something in his game that will increase his stats. Do you have a reason for this?
I don’t think SABR people don’t believe players can get better. Rather, we favor different statistical indicators that are more durable and indicative of some underlying improvement in a player’s ability. Now, it’s possible that SABR people see the range in which a player can either improve or get worse as smaller than others, but I’m not really sure.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
I mean, I am sure some people think players can improve but like in the article, whenever a stat shows fluxuation, it’s usually luck or he will be unable to sustain it or something like that. I believe that alot fo the time, luck and hot streaks can affect stats, so you have to be careful there, but I see that rationale used all the time by SABR people, instead of wondering if they improved. That’s just my view though.
.I believe that alot fo the time, luck and hot streaks can affect stats, so you have to be careful there,
Hence the use of terms ‘small sample’ size so often. Ruiz has 3 seasons in which he had an unusually low BABIP and one season where he seems to have a high one. To say that his one season is more compelling than the previous three is just faulty analysis and more wishful thinking than rational discourse
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know where you got this idea that I think Ruiz has turned into a great hitter. I am just wondering why it gets written off as luck so quickly, without at least entertaining the idea that a player is improving.
I think you are misinterpreting and misreading what people are saying. It’s not being ‘written off’ as luck but 3 seasons are more statistically relevant than one.
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
so we give Blanton credit for his most recent outings over his start of the year, but not to Chooch for his most recent season over his past 3?
I’m not sure what this we you refer to is, I said nothing about Blanton whatsoever but thanks for trying to totally veer it off track into what’s bugging you today
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
As I said,
His BABIP through 8/14/09 was .256. Since then, it’s been .330. So is it luck? It’s possible.
I know you’re not talking about this particular article necessarily, but I actually happen to think it’s more improvement than luck. But Sabremetrics have taught us that until you have a larger sample size, you just don’t know, and right now he has twice as many low-BABIP PAs as high-BABIP ones.
And maybe he’s just lucky – which is why people want to wait to see if he can replicate it next year.
Sometimes I think you just want to contradict certain posters
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. For instance, a pitcher can get better, but if the pitcher is really getting better, that will probably show up in more strikeouts, fewer walks, and/or fewer homers. He isn’t going to get better by improving his BABIP.
BIPs really represent the middle of the potential range of results. If a player improves, it is much more likely that that improvement will show up in the number of BIPs rather than the percentage of success or failure on BIPs.
Jamie Moyer is a pretty obvious example of a pitcher who genuinely improved a LOT in the middle of his career. But he didn’t do it by improving his BABIP. He mainly did it by massively lowering his walks.
In any event, what I thought I was doing in my previous comment was explaining that it isn’t necessarily “luck”. There’s a difference between saying something is lucky and saying something is unlikely to continue over the long term.
I can see what you are saying. I just wonder why SABR people are so quick to write off these fluctuations as luck, or something similar. For me, nearly a full season of stats is significant. Maybe it’s not for others, so to each his own, I guess.
For Pitcher’s it is luck, the vast majority of the time. There just isn’t all that much a pitcher can do to improve his BABIP (except, perhaps, improving his GB%). For a hitter, he may have changed his approach in an effort to create more line drives, but you need enough data to bear that out. Therefore it is viewed sceptically, at first.
Essentially, the reason why people tend to doubt (not write off) the sustainability of these fluctuations is that there is a large body of data of other guys who have had great or bad BABIP years and then bounced back to the norm. Obviously every player is different, but since it’s usually the case that any sudden improvement or dropoff in a hitter’s BABIP is temporary (or at least inflated), that’s the baseline assumption until proven otherwise.
I should add that there are some people who consider themselves to be saber-minded who do, in fact, take an unduly extreme “writing off”-type stance on these issues. You might call this Vulgar Sabr-ism. Just like with any school of thought, there are some people who overstate things because they’re bombastic. This does not mean that what they’re doing is “by the book” of sabermetric thinking.
Yeah, this is true for sure and I did lump everyone together in my initial post. I think BABIP is talked about so much and alot of BABIP is luck but I feel like the players deserve some credit.
You can see how BABIP is lucky through the game earlier this week (the first inning I think?) when the Phils put up all those runs on singles. That is luck, obviously. However, if a player increases his BABIP by hitting more balls hard to the gaps (for nearly a full season), the player deserves some credit instead of bringing up luck right away.
I guess I try to weave the line between SABR stats and traditional thinking too much.
I hear what you’re saying. That stuff tends to even out over the course of a long year though.
Also, if you’re consistently hitting the ball squarely over the course of an entire year, then yes some of what used to be your weakly-hit balls will turn into balls to the gaps. But then what also tends to happen is that some of what used to be your balls to the gaps turn into homers. And some of what used to be your strikeouts turn into weakly-hit balls. In the end, what happens is you have fewer strikeouts and more homers, but your BABIP stays the same because that represents the middle range.
at what point does it cease to be ‘small sample size’?
We’re not talking a Brady Anderson roidrage season, or a Raul 3 month tear. This has been over the course of a full baseball season, where he’s mixed in a few slumps (like around the ASG).
This isn’t a snarky question….it’s one that I’m curious about. Where do you draw the line, because it seems nebulous to me. While I’ll agree that ~500 PA’s might not be enough to re-write the book on Ruiz, it certainly is enough to start raising suspicion.
they never seem to believe a player can get worse or better.
That’s just flat out incorrect. They believe a player can get worse (or better) they just don’t believe one season is enough of a sample size when compared to 3 previous seasons.
There are a lot more games where he had a much lower BABIP than he had this year. If he duplicates it again next year then maybe it’s something, The problem, it seems, is that YOU want it to be significant so since SABR won’t agree with you you want to make it their fault.
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem, it seems, is that YOU want it to be significant so since SABR won’t agree with you you want to make it their fault.
I don’t really understand your last point. Like I said, I use these stats all the time. However, I often see the explanation being luck or something else I mentioned.
I just think that almost one full season is a decent sample size to use to compare to previous seasons. Maybe you prefer, but I think you can draw inferences from one. Now maybe next year he will drop off and we will see a decrease in BABIP and say ‘well last year was luck’ but how often is a player going to be lucky for an entire season?
Again, it isn’t a question of whether improvement is possible, but which statistics are the most appropriate ones to measure improvement. A batter can certainly improve, but it’s most likely to show up not in a higher BABIP but rather in more walks, more homers, etc. And that does happen for some guys.
3 seasons
1 season
75%
25%
If it isn’t repeated next seasons then its
80%
20%
if it is repeated it’s
60%
40%
No one has written it off as luck except you seem to think everyone is
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand what you are saying on terms of having to look at his improvement in the context of prior performance, but would the fact that he has hit so well in the past year be considered more significant in projecting his future performance due to its recency?
by dannijd on Sep 20, 2010 2:15 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
This is kinda what I’m getting at too. One season doesn’t re-write it, but it seems reasonably long enough to start questioning things.
25% seems reasonably large enough to rewrite 75%?
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t believe one season is reasonably long enough to start questioning anything unless it carries over through the first couple months of next season, presuming a guy has been in the league 3+ years full time
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
How about you read what I wrote again, the answer to your question is actually in what I wrote
Seriously, the trolling has to stop
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Your entire persona is one of the troll fan. If you read what I wrote originally your comment would have been unnecessary
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
ok…I’ll let you troll me (because that’s what you’ve been trying to do, and I’ll take the port side long rigger with the pink stubby bubbler, silve mylar flash and ballyhoo, but I’m going to throw the hook after this post).
You’ve observed my jostling with TP and FM and didn’t like it. My initial hostility with FM was over his labeling me a racist and knee-jerkedly attacking some very basic stat research I did. We’ve had our piece and we’re done.
TP is a smart guy, but he’s a jerk. There’s no getting around that. He berates a lot of my postings for minutae, alludes to my idiocy as prelogue to responses, etc, but when you play his game back at him (ie…why do you think the Phils wouldn’t want to sweep the Braves?) you get a manifestoish response that borders on comical. He’s a psuedo cyber-bully who doesn’t follow the golden rule and doesn’t care. That rubs me the wrong way. I still think he’s a smart guy and does good research, I enjoy reading his stuff, but I wouldn’t want to have a beer with him.
Now……can we get back to Phillies discussion and intelligent discussion like small sample size delineations?
Not what I was getting at either- I was more wondering if, for the purposes of prognosticating, the fact that a player has one great year after three good ones leads to a stronger belief that the player can continue to do great than if that great year were, for example, a year ago, with good (but not great) years both before and after.
by dannijd on Sep 20, 2010 3:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Most people not named Joe Morgan would not make that logical leap. Responsibly predicting his future you have to say he will likely “regress” closer to his career normals, but it is possible that he will maintain his current success in some shape or form.
Well, it is reasonable to say that if two otherwise identical players post the following four years:
Player A: Bad, Good, Bad, Bad
Player B: Bad, Bad, Bad, Good
Player B is more likely than Player A to do well in Year Five. Given that the sample size of Good performance is small in both cases in this example, neither player is terribly likely to do well in Year Five in absolute terms. But comparatively speaking, there is a difference.
If it’s one year, yes it’s going to be considered luck until it’s established that it’s not.
Some guys have maintained career BABIP well above the league average. a one year blip is considered luck until it’s not luck, which means it’s maintained longer than just the one season.
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
If it’s one year, yes it’s going to be considered luck until it’s established that it’s not.
See, that is writing it off as luck, is it not?
It’s more an issue of the burden of proof. It’s not to say that it’s definitely luck and you’ll never change your mind, but just you should tentatively assume it’s luck until proven otherwise.
great work
Loved this piece. Chooch, the Roys, and Cole have been the biggest bright spots on the roster this season.
Madson, too. Just wish he hadn’t kicked the chair.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
Werth?
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Sep 20, 2010 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
"biggest"
Werth has had a very good season but it’s not totally out of line with expectations.
Maybe rephrase this as “most pleasant surprises.”
Halladay has been somewhat better than I expected, Hamels has recovered nicely from the weird ’09, Oswalt has been a monster.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
As a Giant’s fan I find Cooch to be the most likable Phillie and I love his scoreboard interviews especially the favorite cereal one.
Anyways, I just wanted to add one more thing to consider. OPS might not be the best to compare Chooch to his counterparts as it tends to over values OBP. Add to that the fact that Chooch most commonly bats 8th (has he batted anywhere else?), a position in the lineup that inflates OBP while the others on your list bat 3,4,5,6 depending on the day. Chooch is great, in fact he might be the most under valued player in baseball, but I think OPS and OBP overvalue him a little.
Overplayed memes:
EASTCOAST BIAS
2002 WS CANCELED
Blue Jays want all our player that we don't utilize correctly
It might, I switch things up all the time.
Overplayed memes:
EASTCOAST BIAS
2002 WS CANCELED
Blue Jays want all our player that we don't utilize correctly
by say hey nation on Sep 20, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
OPS inflates slugging
The figure I remember is that OBP is ~3X more important than SLG, but OPS treats them as equals by simply adding them together. In addition, SLG percentages have more variability, which compounds the problem.
if you go by wOBA, which theoretically weights OBP & SLG more equally, Ruiz (.365) ranks fourth in the NL behind Soto (.385), Posey (.381), and McCann (.367).
FWIW, the gap between Ruiz and the fifth catcher (Ryan Doumit, .333) is pretty big, so it’s not at all unreasonable to group Ruiz with those other three—this year, at least.
by perfectdepth on Sep 20, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Just an observation or general question. How is it that Geovany Soto can be leading the NL in this important category yet have no buzz about what a great year he’s having? It doesn’t look like he’ll end up with enough games or plate appearances to be considered the #1 catcher for 2010 in wOBA (unless 105 games/387 PA are enough). Seeing Ruiz ranked so high makes me realize what great fortune the Phillies had in finding a solid replacement for Mike Lieberthal when they needed one.
by phillyinportland on Sep 20, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately for him it has a lot to do with not being on a contender.
The minimum for qualifying for rate stats like wOBA is 3.1 PAs X # of Cubs games (so 502 = 3.1 * 162, unless they play fewer games because there are rainouts that aren’t made up, for example).
That explains it
Not being on a contender is quite a fall off for the Cubs this year, after two division titles and a second-place finish last year. Soto is just a forgotten star as most of that team fell apart. Just another case of the NL Central being topsy-turvy, with every team able to contend within a year or so, except for the poor old Pirates.
by phillyinportland on Sep 20, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the Pirates could contend in two if everything breaks right for them.
They could have McCutchen in arb, plus Tabata, Alvarez, next year’s #1 pick, and their young catcher all on minimum salary deals. If they can just get lucky on a couple of their pitching prospects, they might have something.
I hope you’re right. I think it would be great for baseball to have a winning team back in Pittsburgh – same as with Kansas City. That young infielder Neal Walker (sp?) has been pretty good, too, I think.
by phillyinportland on Sep 20, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
But would they stay winning or would it be like a marlins second world series confluence of prospects all having a good season at the same time only to be sold off to the teams who can afford them when they hit free agency?
To me that’s not good for baseball, it’s not bad for baseball but it ain’t good either. It’s just an off shot of smart drafting and sucking for an extended period of time
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 21, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
As a Giant’s fan I find Cooch to be the most likable Phillie and I love his scoreboard interviews especially the favorite cereal one.
What do you have against Ryan HOward? Just curios as he always comes off to me as the most likeable (and one of the few with national coverage)
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
meh, nothing against Howard. I just tire of hearing about how awesome he his.
Overplayed memes:
EASTCOAST BIAS
2002 WS CANCELED
Blue Jays want all our player that we don't utilize correctly
by say hey nation on Sep 20, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
You mean like hearing how awesome Sandoval is?
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
To answer your question
Add to that the fact that Chooch most commonly bats 8th (has he batted anywhere else?), a position in the lineup that inflates OBP while the others on your list bat 3,4,5,6 depending on the day.
It’s true that some of his walks are due to batting in front of the pitcher, but this year, due to his success, he’s had almost as many at bats out of the 7th spot:
6th – 5 PAs
7th – 182 … .346/.418/.537 (.955 OPS), with 9.9% BB rate
8th – 205 … .253/.390/.337 (.727 OPS), with 17.6% BB rate
9th – 8
So, yes, he’s getting fewer walks out of the 7 spot, as expected, but he may also be getting better pitches to hit.
Wasn’t Ruiz hitting 8th most of the previous seasons as well?
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, before this year ~90% of the time he’s batted 8th, en route to a .692 OPS (through 8/15/09). But his OBP was .330, or around league average, partly because he was sometimes pitched around.
That’s what I thought, so the batting 8th argument doesn’t really hold water against his walk rate improvement since it’s usually him batting 8th
by SportingFanaticism on Sep 20, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
hey…give Chooch credit for letting them pitch around him. Other guys might go up there hacking and whiff.
Absolutely. He’s a very good 8 hitter, being patient and taking the walk, and, worst case, turning the lineup over.
In addition, while he may get a few extra walks, he also wouldn’t get as many good pitches to hit. His time in the 7 slot is a fairly small sample (182 PAs, see above), but he’s been raking there (.955 OPS batting 7th, vs. 727 batting 8th), and part of that may be due to seeing better pitches.
Jurrjens out tonight
http://www.talkingchop.com/2010/9/20/1700190/brandon-beachy-replaces-jair
Found this on Wikipedia. Do anyone know anything more about him?
Beachy was moved into the starting rotation for the AA Mississippi Braves late June 2010. In his time as a AA player, Beachy struck out 100 batters while allowing merely 53 hits and 22 walks in 27 games (73.2 innings) while maintaining a miniscule 1.47 ERA. He complied a record of 3 wins and 1 loss. Opposing hitters hit just .200 and produced only 12 earned runs. Beachy’s best performance of the season occurred on July 15 when he struck out 13 of 19 batters against Huntsville Stars.
by Boundforbeach on Sep 20, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
No that’s it, pretty much. I know he wasn’t really considered to be any sort of prospect before the season started, but he rocketed up the lists with his performance this year. He’s 24. Kind of an intriguing story along the lines of our own Austin Hyatt, except he was a level ahead of Hyatt.
Yep
Supposedly a great curveball and solid fastball in the low 90s. Could be a #3 starter one day, according to a few scouts.
'Terrible preview...pretty weak, didn't learn anything new. pretty sad." - mastermike
by Scott Coleman on Sep 20, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe I’ll change my name to Chief-Noc-a-Beach.
by Boundforbeach on Sep 20, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder if the Phils got wind of this in advance and prepared any scouting reports/video to prepare
by Boundforbeach on Sep 20, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t Jurrjens a pitcher the Phillies have struggled with in the past, or do I have my Braves starters mixed up?
by dannijd on Sep 20, 2010 3:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
After today, the Braves will have had four starting pitchers this year with alliterated names. Brandon Beachy, Jair Jurrjens, Mike Minor, and Kenshin Kawakami. That’s got to be some kind of record.
If only we would have gotten Dan Haren.
"Contreras and I were just looking at him eating this iguana thing over white rice and he put it away like it was a double cheeseburger, you know?"
by LeepinLizardz on Sep 20, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Thursday, May 24, 2012, 8:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing out to left field at 15-20 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 85.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
- Will Smith shows why making your big-league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
