Tuesday, November 06, 2007
AN ALTERNATIVE PRESENTS ITSELF
Over the past couple of weeks, I've been posting about the possibility of the Angels acquiring Alex Rodriguez. Recent developments, long-rumored, present us with another potential option for improving the Angel offense.
The Florida Marlins are reportedly willing to put Miguel Cabrera on the market.
Miguel Cabrera is a young hitter of astonishing quality and achievement. He doesn't turn 25 until April; here are some stats of Cabrera and two other hitters through the age of 24:
Player B is Frank Robinson.
There are, however, certain negatives to Cabrera:
1. His defense.
By all accounts, both anecdotal and statistical, Cabrera is a bad third baseman. Per the Baseball Info Solutions data at the Hardball Times, he was approximately 15 plays below the league average on balls in his zone last year, worth over 10 runs (he also had an unexceptional total of plays made outside of his zone, though this doesn't necessarily mean anything). He was approximately -8 plays, or around -6 runs, below average in 2006.
2. His conditioning.
Miguel Cabrera is progressively becoming a fatter and fatter bastard. This bodes ill for his conditioning, long-term health, and his ability to play defense and run the bases.
3. He will cost a fortune -- in players.
The Marlins are allegedly seeking a young third baseman, a young pitcher, and a center fielder.
It just so happens that the Angels can offer such a package: Brandon Wood, one of Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana, and -- though he may be older than what the Marlins are looking for -- Chone Figgins.
This is a steep price, even for a hitter of Cabrera's talents. But while Brandon Wood is looking like the next Dean Palmer (not a bad thing with good glove at either of his potential positions), Cabrera is a sure bet.
Of course, trading one of Saunders and Santana would mean we'd have to go out and get a starting pitcher. Intriguingly, Florida is also looking to shop Dontrelle Willis. Would Florida accept a package of Wood, Saunders/Santana, Figgins, and maybe one more mid-level prospect (not Adenhart) for Cabrera and Willis? I suspect they'd think about it. Should the Angels?
Let's break this down:
- Is Miguel Cabrera a step up from Brandon Wood? Almost certainly.
- With Reggie Willits around to caddy Gary Matthews Jr and Garret Anderson, with the payroll flexibility to bring Juan Rivera back to support the corners, and with Maicer Izturis providing roughly league-average production as a infield backup, is Chone Figgins expendable? I like the guy, and he's coming off a big year, but I can't help but answer "yes".
- Is giving up one of Saunders and Santana and getting Willits an upgrade or downgrade, and if it's the latter, is it enough to negate the improvement made by adding Cabrera to the lineup?
By BB-Ref's linear weights figures, Cabrera has been +46.3, +56.6, and +45.7 runs above average, offensively, in each of the last three years; he's a good bet to be +50 or so in the next couple of years. Dock 10 runs for his D, he's still a +40 player, roughly 4 wins above average. Chone Figgins, whom Cabrera would be replacing in the lineup, over the past three years has been +1.8, -13.4, and +13.4 (these figures include basestealing, but not other baserunning). Even with his defense, I'd guess that Figgins in 2008 projects to be roughly average, maybe just a bit above.
So we're looking at maybe a 35-40-run difference between Cabrera and Figgins.
It is obvious that the difference, in the short term, between Saunders/Santana and Willits will be far less than 40 runs. Let's look at their totals the past four years, which of course for the Halos is only a couple of years (PR is Pitching Runs, or Earned Runs Prevented Above Average):
I'll spare you the details, but looking at Willis' batted-ball stats, we can see that he allowed home runs more frequently last year on flyballs than at most other points in his career, which could have been a big part of his struggles. Whether or not that's a fluky thing or a sign of a change in his skill level, I don't know. If he's healthy, I have trouble believing that he just forgot how to pitch or something.
My preference would be to only give up Wood and Figgins -- that does open a shortstop hole in 2009, but we don't know that Wood would fill it, anyway, though if we still have him in 2008 I'd love for him to return to that position at AAA -- for Cabrera. I think there's a good chance that both of Saunders and Santana will be at least as productive (and cheaper) than Willis in the next few years (based on their component stats and relative ages), so I don't know that I'd like to exchange one of them. But I can see talks moving in that direction, and, despite the money, Willis is probably a solid bet to shore up the bottom of the rotation.
As for the question of Cabrera vis-a-vis A-Rod, the question is really "What are we more willing to part with -- players or money?" I don't know what Arte's answer to this would be. From a roster construction standpoint, the ideal would be to sign A-Rod and hold on to all our chips; Wood can be bred for short, Saunders and Santana can develop, and we still have Figgins to play or be traded for a pitcher if we don't trust in the tykes.
Even re-signing Cabrera and/or Willis in future years would likely cost less (combined) than A-Rod would -- though of course that's a few years down the road -- so that's obviously a more cost-effective solution in terms of dollars (though adding a shortstop to the payroll -- or re-signing Orlando Cabrera -- in lieu of the bargain Wood is another financial cost to consider in that scenario).
I do think these are the best two alternatives of which we're aware; there is occasional talk of Miguel Tejada, but Tejada's on the wrong side of 30 and is not a hitter of the caliber of either Rodriguez or Miggy, and may well demand a package of similar value (to the Cabrera package) in exchange.
So, money or players? I don't know.
The Florida Marlins are reportedly willing to put Miguel Cabrera on the market.
Miguel Cabrera is a young hitter of astonishing quality and achievement. He doesn't turn 25 until April; here are some stats of Cabrera and two other hitters through the age of 24:
Player PA OPS+ HR AVG OBP SLGPlayer A is Hank Aaron.
Player A 3173 145 140 .316 .365 .543
Cabrera 3072 143 138 .313 .388 .542
Player B 3156 142 165 .298 .380 .552
Player B is Frank Robinson.
There are, however, certain negatives to Cabrera:
1. His defense.
By all accounts, both anecdotal and statistical, Cabrera is a bad third baseman. Per the Baseball Info Solutions data at the Hardball Times, he was approximately 15 plays below the league average on balls in his zone last year, worth over 10 runs (he also had an unexceptional total of plays made outside of his zone, though this doesn't necessarily mean anything). He was approximately -8 plays, or around -6 runs, below average in 2006.
2. His conditioning.
Miguel Cabrera is progressively becoming a fatter and fatter bastard. This bodes ill for his conditioning, long-term health, and his ability to play defense and run the bases.
3. He will cost a fortune -- in players.
The Marlins are allegedly seeking a young third baseman, a young pitcher, and a center fielder.
It just so happens that the Angels can offer such a package: Brandon Wood, one of Joe Saunders and Ervin Santana, and -- though he may be older than what the Marlins are looking for -- Chone Figgins.
This is a steep price, even for a hitter of Cabrera's talents. But while Brandon Wood is looking like the next Dean Palmer (not a bad thing with good glove at either of his potential positions), Cabrera is a sure bet.
Of course, trading one of Saunders and Santana would mean we'd have to go out and get a starting pitcher. Intriguingly, Florida is also looking to shop Dontrelle Willis. Would Florida accept a package of Wood, Saunders/Santana, Figgins, and maybe one more mid-level prospect (not Adenhart) for Cabrera and Willis? I suspect they'd think about it. Should the Angels?
Let's break this down:
- Is Miguel Cabrera a step up from Brandon Wood? Almost certainly.
- With Reggie Willits around to caddy Gary Matthews Jr and Garret Anderson, with the payroll flexibility to bring Juan Rivera back to support the corners, and with Maicer Izturis providing roughly league-average production as a infield backup, is Chone Figgins expendable? I like the guy, and he's coming off a big year, but I can't help but answer "yes".
- Is giving up one of Saunders and Santana and getting Willits an upgrade or downgrade, and if it's the latter, is it enough to negate the improvement made by adding Cabrera to the lineup?
By BB-Ref's linear weights figures, Cabrera has been +46.3, +56.6, and +45.7 runs above average, offensively, in each of the last three years; he's a good bet to be +50 or so in the next couple of years. Dock 10 runs for his D, he's still a +40 player, roughly 4 wins above average. Chone Figgins, whom Cabrera would be replacing in the lineup, over the past three years has been +1.8, -13.4, and +13.4 (these figures include basestealing, but not other baserunning). Even with his defense, I'd guess that Figgins in 2008 projects to be roughly average, maybe just a bit above.
So we're looking at maybe a 35-40-run difference between Cabrera and Figgins.
It is obvious that the difference, in the short term, between Saunders/Santana and Willits will be far less than 40 runs. Let's look at their totals the past four years, which of course for the Halos is only a couple of years (PR is Pitching Runs, or Earned Runs Prevented Above Average):
Pitcher BF K/BF BB/BF HR/BF H/BF ERA+ PR PR/IPAs you can see, Willis has been better over the past few seasons than the two Angel youths. However, somewhat like Santana, he's coming off a bad season where he pitched well below-average.
Willis 3725 .165 .077 .022 .241 113 +28 +.032
Saunders 816 .152 .082 .025 .257 97 - 3 -.016
Santana 2104 .174 .083 .030 .235 92 -20 -.041
I'll spare you the details, but looking at Willis' batted-ball stats, we can see that he allowed home runs more frequently last year on flyballs than at most other points in his career, which could have been a big part of his struggles. Whether or not that's a fluky thing or a sign of a change in his skill level, I don't know. If he's healthy, I have trouble believing that he just forgot how to pitch or something.
My preference would be to only give up Wood and Figgins -- that does open a shortstop hole in 2009, but we don't know that Wood would fill it, anyway, though if we still have him in 2008 I'd love for him to return to that position at AAA -- for Cabrera. I think there's a good chance that both of Saunders and Santana will be at least as productive (and cheaper) than Willis in the next few years (based on their component stats and relative ages), so I don't know that I'd like to exchange one of them. But I can see talks moving in that direction, and, despite the money, Willis is probably a solid bet to shore up the bottom of the rotation.
As for the question of Cabrera vis-a-vis A-Rod, the question is really "What are we more willing to part with -- players or money?" I don't know what Arte's answer to this would be. From a roster construction standpoint, the ideal would be to sign A-Rod and hold on to all our chips; Wood can be bred for short, Saunders and Santana can develop, and we still have Figgins to play or be traded for a pitcher if we don't trust in the tykes.
Even re-signing Cabrera and/or Willis in future years would likely cost less (combined) than A-Rod would -- though of course that's a few years down the road -- so that's obviously a more cost-effective solution in terms of dollars (though adding a shortstop to the payroll -- or re-signing Orlando Cabrera -- in lieu of the bargain Wood is another financial cost to consider in that scenario).
I do think these are the best two alternatives of which we're aware; there is occasional talk of Miguel Tejada, but Tejada's on the wrong side of 30 and is not a hitter of the caliber of either Rodriguez or Miggy, and may well demand a package of similar value (to the Cabrera package) in exchange.
So, money or players? I don't know.
Labels: Alex Rodriguez, Brandon Wood, Chone Figgins, Dontrelle Willis, Ervin Santana, Garret Anderson, Gary Matthews Jr, Joe Saunders, Juan Rivera, Maicer Izturis, Miguel Cabrera, Miguel Tejada
Friday, July 27, 2007
BIG TEIX
Mike DiGiovanna and Ben Bolch:
Now, first of all, Mark Teixeira is an excellent hitter and superb defender. He almost certainly is an upgrade on Casey Kotchman right now (if for no other reason than he's not a platoon player). But how much would he help this team over the balance of the season?
Over his career (four-and-a-half seasons), I estimate Teixeira to be roughly +.035 runs per plate appearance better than the average hitter. The Angels currently use a platoon; in their careers, Kotch is +.005 for his career against RHP and Q is +.037 against LHP.
Now, this isn't entirely fair to Casey, as it includes his disease-plagued 2006 numbers, but, for the moment, let's assume that this represents his true talent level. There are 57 games from August 1 forward, and I think we can safely assume four plate appearances per game. That's 228 plate appearances left to go in the season from the first base spot. With 229 plate appearances, at his career levels, Mark Teixeira would give us around +8 runs above average.
That's right: a whole eight runs.
76% of the Angels' PA this year have come against right-handed pitching, so of the 228 remaining PA at 1B, 173 would go to Kotchman and 55 to Quinlan (Q could of course rack up some appearances at other positions). Based on their career rates, that would give us +1 run from Kotchman and +2 runs from Robb. So three total -- five less than Teixeira: half of a win.
Now, we're almost certainly underselling Kotchman here, possibly overselling Quinlan, and possibly underselling Big Tex. Kotch so far this year is +.045 vs. RHP, Q this year is -.006, and Teixeira overall is +.053. Over 228 PA, that's +12 from Teixeira against +8 from Casey and -1 from Quinlan: that's still a difference of only five runs.
(I know I'm ignoring defense here, but as Kotch and Tex are both Gold Glove contenders, I think that's going to be a wash.)
Now, let's look at some other issues: Teixeira is far pricier than Kotchman. Teixeira is three years older than Kotchman. Teixeira is a free agent afterthis year 2008, and is considered to be a favorite to bolt for the east coast, from which he hails (a Maryland native, he played college ball at Georgia Tech). Teixeira is represented by Scott Boras, who says stupid crap about Tex being worth $30M per year.
And, oh yeah: this isn't even a straight-up deal, we'd also be asked to give up one of Ervin Santana and Joe Saunders! A team that just lost Bartolo Colon forever and has Santana -- who led the team in wins last year! -- down in AAA to work out his kinks. A team that only has four major league starters at the moment, and if it traded Saunders, might only have three (four once Santana straightens out). How the hell does this seem like a good idea to anybody? We're going to give up one of our few remaining starters and three years of Casey Kotchman to get five extra runs out of Mark Teixeira?! COME ON!
(Now, I know we'd also have Tex next season before he bolted. And maybe Kendry Morales would be ready to step in for him if we didn't re-sign him. I'm just not sure that the difference between Casey and Teixeira next year would be worth the cost, especially given that we'd be down one of our five planned 2008 starting pitchers.)
It doesn't matter, the Braves are gonna top our offer, anyway. I'll be glad to get that monster out of our division.
Though there is an outside chance they could acquire Chicago White Sox outfielder Jermaine Dye, it appears to be Mark Teixeira or bust for the Angels ...Okay, seriously, what is this nonsense?
...
Angels first baseman Casey Kotchman would be part of any package to acquire Teixeira, and the Rangers, who had zeroed in on Ervin Santana before the struggling right-hander was demoted to triple-A Salt Lake on July 18, are believed to be comfortable with left-hander Joe Saunders as part of a deal.
But the Rangers want a third player and are scouring the Angels' farm system to determine who to ask for. If Texas wants one of the Angels' elite prospects, such as third baseman Brandon Wood or double-A pitcher Nick Adenhart, trade talks would fizzle. But if Texas would accept a lesser prospect, a deal would be more likely.
The Rangers are also believed to be interested in outfielders Reggie Willits, Nathan Haynes or Terry Evans as the third player in the deal.
Now, first of all, Mark Teixeira is an excellent hitter and superb defender. He almost certainly is an upgrade on Casey Kotchman right now (if for no other reason than he's not a platoon player). But how much would he help this team over the balance of the season?
Over his career (four-and-a-half seasons), I estimate Teixeira to be roughly +.035 runs per plate appearance better than the average hitter. The Angels currently use a platoon; in their careers, Kotch is +.005 for his career against RHP and Q is +.037 against LHP.
Now, this isn't entirely fair to Casey, as it includes his disease-plagued 2006 numbers, but, for the moment, let's assume that this represents his true talent level. There are 57 games from August 1 forward, and I think we can safely assume four plate appearances per game. That's 228 plate appearances left to go in the season from the first base spot. With 229 plate appearances, at his career levels, Mark Teixeira would give us around +8 runs above average.
That's right: a whole eight runs.
76% of the Angels' PA this year have come against right-handed pitching, so of the 228 remaining PA at 1B, 173 would go to Kotchman and 55 to Quinlan (Q could of course rack up some appearances at other positions). Based on their career rates, that would give us +1 run from Kotchman and +2 runs from Robb. So three total -- five less than Teixeira: half of a win.
Now, we're almost certainly underselling Kotchman here, possibly overselling Quinlan, and possibly underselling Big Tex. Kotch so far this year is +.045 vs. RHP, Q this year is -.006, and Teixeira overall is +.053. Over 228 PA, that's +12 from Teixeira against +8 from Casey and -1 from Quinlan: that's still a difference of only five runs.
(I know I'm ignoring defense here, but as Kotch and Tex are both Gold Glove contenders, I think that's going to be a wash.)
Now, let's look at some other issues: Teixeira is far pricier than Kotchman. Teixeira is three years older than Kotchman. Teixeira is a free agent after
And, oh yeah: this isn't even a straight-up deal, we'd also be asked to give up one of Ervin Santana and Joe Saunders! A team that just lost Bartolo Colon forever and has Santana -- who led the team in wins last year! -- down in AAA to work out his kinks. A team that only has four major league starters at the moment, and if it traded Saunders, might only have three (four once Santana straightens out). How the hell does this seem like a good idea to anybody? We're going to give up one of our few remaining starters and three years of Casey Kotchman to get five extra runs out of Mark Teixeira?! COME ON!
(Now, I know we'd also have Tex next season before he bolted. And maybe Kendry Morales would be ready to step in for him if we didn't re-sign him. I'm just not sure that the difference between Casey and Teixeira next year would be worth the cost, especially given that we'd be down one of our five planned 2008 starting pitchers.)
It doesn't matter, the Braves are gonna top our offer, anyway. I'll be glad to get that monster out of our division.
Labels: Bill Stoneman, Casey Kotchman, Ervin Santana, Joe Saunders, Mark Teixeira, Robb Quinlan, Scott Boras
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
THE SANTANA QUESTION
Ervin's start in St. Petersburg today did nothing to assuage his critics, and little to encourage his champions. He kept the ball in the park, but no matter what he did, it resulted in a hit. Hard groundballs were hits. Soft groundballs were hits. Line drives were hits. Flyballs were hits. Bloopers were hits.
And so the call resounds to sent Ervin to Salt Lake, as if this will help. After all, he never really pitched there, right?
Well, that part is true, but it hasn't seemed to have hurt him, has it? Do you really think his struggles now are happening because he didn't pitch much at AAA two years ago?
I mean, Ervin did struggle somewhat when he came up at first, at least with his consistency. His ERA stood at 6.20 after his first eight starts, but over his next 15, Ervin put up a more-than-solid 3.97 in 93 innings, striking out 65 against 27 walks.
As you know, Ervin was an above-average pitcher in 2006, as well, posting an ERA+ of 102. He probably was a bit lucky on balls in play, but, well check out this comparison between Ervin '06 and a Mystery Pitcher:
If you guessed John Lackey in 2003, you were correct. This is a comparison of each guy's first full season. Looking at his peripherals, you see that Ervin wasn't too far off of Lackey; a tad less strikeouts, a few more walks, but much better on hits and home runs -- and a year younger.
Now, did Ervin really get away with a season-and-half of solid major league pitching in a way that tells us he needed to experience AAA? In 48 starts from the middle of 2005 through the end of 2006, Ervin had a 4.18 ERA, striking out 206 against 97 walks in 297 innings. That's a major league pitcher.
Of course, he is pitching terribly this season. But I fail to see that his failures this year are due to his having "missed" development time in AAA. If that were the case, wouldn't we have seen these problems before? In, like, the previous 340 innings he threw?
Now, I'm not discounting the idea that maybe a trip to AAA might help him. But it seems like a rash move. I think that, if Ervin isn't straightened out within the month, it should be a trip to the bullpen, not the minors, for Santana. Let him work against major league hitters, in front of a major league defense.
There's room for him; we can always send Brandon Wood or Kendry Morales (whom Mike Scioscia appears to have little want of using) back to AAA to get regular at-bats. Joe Saunders (who everyone is talking about like he's an established major league starter, despite his bona fides being shakier than Ervin's in many ways, including his unexceptional performance for Salt Lake this year) can enter the rotation, or I guess even Dustin Moseley, though how a guy who strikes out less than one man per two innings is supposed to maintain success is beyond me.
What I know is that we have a talented pitcher who has suddenly become unable to pitch. He skipped AAA, basically, and for a reason. Let's keep him around, let him get it together against real competition in low-leverage situations if need be, and unleash him back into the rotation once he's back to where we know he can be.
And so the call resounds to sent Ervin to Salt Lake, as if this will help. After all, he never really pitched there, right?
Well, that part is true, but it hasn't seemed to have hurt him, has it? Do you really think his struggles now are happening because he didn't pitch much at AAA two years ago?
I mean, Ervin did struggle somewhat when he came up at first, at least with his consistency. His ERA stood at 6.20 after his first eight starts, but over his next 15, Ervin put up a more-than-solid 3.97 in 93 innings, striking out 65 against 27 walks.
As you know, Ervin was an above-average pitcher in 2006, as well, posting an ERA+ of 102. He probably was a bit lucky on balls in play, but, well check out this comparison between Ervin '06 and a Mystery Pitcher:
Pitcher Age BFP BF/K BF/BB BF/HR BF/H ERA+Did you guess who the Mystery Pitcher was? I'll give you a hint: it's John Lackey, in 2003.
Ervin Santana 23 846 6.00 12.44 40.29 4.67 102
Lohn Jackey 24 885 5.86 14.27 28.55 3.97 92
If you guessed John Lackey in 2003, you were correct. This is a comparison of each guy's first full season. Looking at his peripherals, you see that Ervin wasn't too far off of Lackey; a tad less strikeouts, a few more walks, but much better on hits and home runs -- and a year younger.
Now, did Ervin really get away with a season-and-half of solid major league pitching in a way that tells us he needed to experience AAA? In 48 starts from the middle of 2005 through the end of 2006, Ervin had a 4.18 ERA, striking out 206 against 97 walks in 297 innings. That's a major league pitcher.
Of course, he is pitching terribly this season. But I fail to see that his failures this year are due to his having "missed" development time in AAA. If that were the case, wouldn't we have seen these problems before? In, like, the previous 340 innings he threw?
Now, I'm not discounting the idea that maybe a trip to AAA might help him. But it seems like a rash move. I think that, if Ervin isn't straightened out within the month, it should be a trip to the bullpen, not the minors, for Santana. Let him work against major league hitters, in front of a major league defense.
There's room for him; we can always send Brandon Wood or Kendry Morales (whom Mike Scioscia appears to have little want of using) back to AAA to get regular at-bats. Joe Saunders (who everyone is talking about like he's an established major league starter, despite his bona fides being shakier than Ervin's in many ways, including his unexceptional performance for Salt Lake this year) can enter the rotation, or I guess even Dustin Moseley, though how a guy who strikes out less than one man per two innings is supposed to maintain success is beyond me.
What I know is that we have a talented pitcher who has suddenly become unable to pitch. He skipped AAA, basically, and for a reason. Let's keep him around, let him get it together against real competition in low-leverage situations if need be, and unleash him back into the rotation once he's back to where we know he can be.
Labels: Brandon Wood, Dustin Moseley, Ervin Santana, Joe Saunders, John Lackey, Kendry Morales
Friday, July 13, 2007
SEASON RESUMES, WILL THE MAGIC?
Well, finally, baseball's back. I think this whole de facto four-day All-Star Break that so many teams have enjoyed is a lot of nonsense, frankly, but what'chu gonna do?
I was silent over the break, but this time it wasn't laziness or busy-ness or anything of that sort; I simply failed. I started working on a piece to try to diagnose the problems of Ervin Santana. I took a gander at batted-ball types, at the types of counts he was getting in ... nothing jumped out, in the record of his performance, as explanatory of the problems he's had lately.
Compared to last season, Ervin is allowing more hits on balls in play and allowing many more home runs. He was exceptionally good/lucky/well-supported in connection with the former last year, so some bounce-back should have been expected and, honestly, is not at alarming levels. What's more disturbing is the latter: Santana is allowing home runs at a vastly higher rate than last season -- nearly twice as frequently.
His struggles don't seem to have anything to do with whether he's from the stretch or not, either -- oddly, he's been better with men on (an OPS allowed of 802) than with the bases empty (944) -- this is the opposite of what you normally see. He does struggle with men in scoring position the most (1000), but is actually doing pretty well with a guy on first only (618).
Does he struggle to close out innings? He's worst with zero outs. Does he struggle after guys have already seen him a couple of times in a game? He's worst the second time through the order, not the third.
The simple solution just seems to be: he's making bad pitches. How someone with his talent, and his level of success, falls apart so, I don't know. There were 84 pitchers in the AL last year who qualified for the ERA title; Santana's 102 ERA+ ranks tied for 51st out of that group, which isn't bad (qualifiers tend to be at least okay pitchers, otherwise they wouldn't get that many innings). And yet, he's starting to look nothing like a pitcher.
The temptation to bring up Joe Saunders remains -- especially that he's starting to perform fairly well at AAA -- but I honestly don't know that putting Ervin in the PCL's gonna do anything for him. (Also, it's not like Ervin is the biggest rotation problem we have now.)
What this really is is the first big challenge Mike Butcher has faced as our pitching coach. Can he figure out what's ailing The Magic? Can Ervin respond? Or is this just a bunch of bad luck, where every single bad pitch is getting punished, instead of a few being fouled off or hit right at someone?
I don't know.
I was silent over the break, but this time it wasn't laziness or busy-ness or anything of that sort; I simply failed. I started working on a piece to try to diagnose the problems of Ervin Santana. I took a gander at batted-ball types, at the types of counts he was getting in ... nothing jumped out, in the record of his performance, as explanatory of the problems he's had lately.
Compared to last season, Ervin is allowing more hits on balls in play and allowing many more home runs. He was exceptionally good/lucky/well-supported in connection with the former last year, so some bounce-back should have been expected and, honestly, is not at alarming levels. What's more disturbing is the latter: Santana is allowing home runs at a vastly higher rate than last season -- nearly twice as frequently.
His struggles don't seem to have anything to do with whether he's from the stretch or not, either -- oddly, he's been better with men on (an OPS allowed of 802) than with the bases empty (944) -- this is the opposite of what you normally see. He does struggle with men in scoring position the most (1000), but is actually doing pretty well with a guy on first only (618).
Does he struggle to close out innings? He's worst with zero outs. Does he struggle after guys have already seen him a couple of times in a game? He's worst the second time through the order, not the third.
The simple solution just seems to be: he's making bad pitches. How someone with his talent, and his level of success, falls apart so, I don't know. There were 84 pitchers in the AL last year who qualified for the ERA title; Santana's 102 ERA+ ranks tied for 51st out of that group, which isn't bad (qualifiers tend to be at least okay pitchers, otherwise they wouldn't get that many innings). And yet, he's starting to look nothing like a pitcher.
The temptation to bring up Joe Saunders remains -- especially that he's starting to perform fairly well at AAA -- but I honestly don't know that putting Ervin in the PCL's gonna do anything for him. (Also, it's not like Ervin is the biggest rotation problem we have now.)
What this really is is the first big challenge Mike Butcher has faced as our pitching coach. Can he figure out what's ailing The Magic? Can Ervin respond? Or is this just a bunch of bad luck, where every single bad pitch is getting punished, instead of a few being fouled off or hit right at someone?
I don't know.
Labels: Bartolo Colon, Ervin Santana, Joe Saunders, Mike Butcher
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
FOUR STARTS
I was unable to post yesterday; if I had, my post would have been titled MORE LIKE IT and would have celebrated our sweep of the Mariners. Alas, last night's game put a damper on that, but I'll cover it nonetheless.
Joe Saunders didn't have a great game on Friday, and got some help from some atom balls, but he kept his composure through a few jams, and you can't complain about going six innings without allowing a run. It was nice to see Saunders succeed in his Virginia Tech hat; the game was obviously significant to him and likely of some significance to some of his fellow Hokies, so that was a nice story all-around.
Saturday brought us the return of Bartolo Colon. Though he only notched one strikeout, he had good velocity early in the game and demonstrated good command of his pitches. When Bartolo is on, he'll often gain velocity as the game progresses; that did not happen here -- perhaps partially due to his tweaked ankle. At any rate, it was good to see the Fat Man back in action and productive, a large boon to the team.
Sunday saw Ervin Santana return to form. The Kid was locating his fastball on the corners and getting his slider over for strikes. With everything working, Ervin was able to wiggle out of a couple of jams (a good sign after his jamtastic previous starts) and put up a strong start.
Much has been made of the disparity in Santana's performance on the home and road, and I do intend to take a look at it some time, but my null hypothesis is that it's all a crazy fluke. There's no real reason he should struggle on the road and dominate at home; there's no unique characteristic of Angels Stadium that would seem to benefit him. Remember, John Lackey also had a stark home-road difference in 2003 and 2004, a trend that eventually corrected itself (and even reversed itself, slightly) in the following two seasons. Was there a reason for that? Sometimes these things just take awhile to shake out.
Anyway, while Ervin excelled by getting his slider in the zone on Sunday, Jered Weaver got rocked by failing to do so Monday night. His location was off; it seemed that the culprit was an elusive release point, as Jered would miss consistently high and then, perhaps overcompensating, consistently low, or vice versa. His slider was missing well outside to right-handed hitters, and missing the zone healthily against southbats; recognizing this, Tiger hitters were able to sit on Jered's fastball, a pitch that is missing a few miles per hour from last year. Given that Weaver the Younger couldn't locate his fastball, either, this was a source of much trouble.
(When he did get the slider over, everything was shiny. He threw two good sliders to Gary Sheffield in the first, the only two he threw for strikes in the whole inning [technically Ivan Rodriguez got a hit off of a slider, but it was comfortably out of the strike zone, but elevated so that I-Rod could get it to the right-center gap]. He also got a strike two on Brandon Inge by getting his slider over the outside corner, and while the next one was outside, Inge had to respect his ability to locate the breaking ball, and wasn't able to stop his swing once he realized the pitch was too far away. Once you establish that breaking pitch in the zone, batters have to respect, and then you can get away with throwing it out of the zone. Curtis Granderson followed, Jered lost the touch on his slider, Granderson singled off a fastball, and the rally was on.)
That lack of velocity is the only warning sign that Weaver may still be injured, or at the very least not fully recovered or prepped for the season. We don't know, of course. The location problems don't really bother me, as though he wasn't quite sharp against Oakland, he only threw one egregious pitch in that game. But as long as he's healthy, I'm unworried.
I was unable to post yesterday; if I had, my post would have been titled MORE LIKE IT and would have celebrated our sweep of the Mariners. Alas, last night's game put a damper on that, but I'll cover it nonetheless.
Joe Saunders didn't have a great game on Friday, and got some help from some atom balls, but he kept his composure through a few jams, and you can't complain about going six innings without allowing a run. It was nice to see Saunders succeed in his Virginia Tech hat; the game was obviously significant to him and likely of some significance to some of his fellow Hokies, so that was a nice story all-around.
Saturday brought us the return of Bartolo Colon. Though he only notched one strikeout, he had good velocity early in the game and demonstrated good command of his pitches. When Bartolo is on, he'll often gain velocity as the game progresses; that did not happen here -- perhaps partially due to his tweaked ankle. At any rate, it was good to see the Fat Man back in action and productive, a large boon to the team.
Sunday saw Ervin Santana return to form. The Kid was locating his fastball on the corners and getting his slider over for strikes. With everything working, Ervin was able to wiggle out of a couple of jams (a good sign after his jamtastic previous starts) and put up a strong start.
Much has been made of the disparity in Santana's performance on the home and road, and I do intend to take a look at it some time, but my null hypothesis is that it's all a crazy fluke. There's no real reason he should struggle on the road and dominate at home; there's no unique characteristic of Angels Stadium that would seem to benefit him. Remember, John Lackey also had a stark home-road difference in 2003 and 2004, a trend that eventually corrected itself (and even reversed itself, slightly) in the following two seasons. Was there a reason for that? Sometimes these things just take awhile to shake out.
Anyway, while Ervin excelled by getting his slider in the zone on Sunday, Jered Weaver got rocked by failing to do so Monday night. His location was off; it seemed that the culprit was an elusive release point, as Jered would miss consistently high and then, perhaps overcompensating, consistently low, or vice versa. His slider was missing well outside to right-handed hitters, and missing the zone healthily against southbats; recognizing this, Tiger hitters were able to sit on Jered's fastball, a pitch that is missing a few miles per hour from last year. Given that Weaver the Younger couldn't locate his fastball, either, this was a source of much trouble.
(When he did get the slider over, everything was shiny. He threw two good sliders to Gary Sheffield in the first, the only two he threw for strikes in the whole inning [technically Ivan Rodriguez got a hit off of a slider, but it was comfortably out of the strike zone, but elevated so that I-Rod could get it to the right-center gap]. He also got a strike two on Brandon Inge by getting his slider over the outside corner, and while the next one was outside, Inge had to respect his ability to locate the breaking ball, and wasn't able to stop his swing once he realized the pitch was too far away. Once you establish that breaking pitch in the zone, batters have to respect, and then you can get away with throwing it out of the zone. Curtis Granderson followed, Jered lost the touch on his slider, Granderson singled off a fastball, and the rally was on.)
That lack of velocity is the only warning sign that Weaver may still be injured, or at the very least not fully recovered or prepped for the season. We don't know, of course. The location problems don't really bother me, as though he wasn't quite sharp against Oakland, he only threw one egregious pitch in that game. But as long as he's healthy, I'm unworried.
Labels: Bartolo Colon, Ervin Santana, Jered Weaver, Joe Saunders
Monday, November 13, 2006
YES, WE HAVE NO ARAMIS
Aramis Ramirez has re-signed with the Cubs, inking a five-year, $73M deal.
I'm somewhat okay with this; I don't think there's any chance Ramirez will really be worth nearly $15M per year over the next five years. Sure, he's a hell of a hitter, but he's a bad defender who will be spending more of his contract on the wrong side of 30 than the right side. (Incidentally, Aramis is the first player younger than me to debut in the major leagues.)
However, I would likely preferred to overpay for Aramis in dollars than overpay for someone like Tejada or A-Rod in players. And, per Mike DiGiovanna's write-up in the Times today, we might end up getting the worst of both worlds.
One scenario has the Angels either shelling out millions and millions of dollars for Japanese phenom Daisuke Matsuzaka or millions for Barry Zito, and then making one of the Ervin-Jered-Saunders troika the centerpiece of a trade for Tejada, A-Rod, or Vernon Wells. Such a move could provide a marginal improvement in the short term, but it would cost a lot more in money and would also mortgage our future for immediate gains. Both Ervin and Jered are likely to have more future remaining value than Zito, for instance, and while Joe Saunders doesn't quite have their upside, he's important insurance against an injury to a rotation starter.
Other pondered moves would include going after Alfonso Soriano, who will be 31 next season, is coming off of his best year ever and will likely be overpaid as a result, and hasn't ever played center field, or Gary Matthews Jr., who's even older and never had a good year until last season. I would guess his chances of repeating his 2006 performance are rather slim.
I still Vernon Wells is the best match of anyone we're talking about; sure, adding a guy like Tejada or A-Rod would be great for the offense, but it would cost us a lot in money and pitching depth. Wells is a lesser hitter, but an excellent defender, and the youngest position player discussed in this post. He would probably cost less than the other guys in terms of who we would have to give up, and provide us benefits on both sides of the ball, so to speak
Aramis Ramirez has re-signed with the Cubs, inking a five-year, $73M deal.
I'm somewhat okay with this; I don't think there's any chance Ramirez will really be worth nearly $15M per year over the next five years. Sure, he's a hell of a hitter, but he's a bad defender who will be spending more of his contract on the wrong side of 30 than the right side. (Incidentally, Aramis is the first player younger than me to debut in the major leagues.)
However, I would likely preferred to overpay for Aramis in dollars than overpay for someone like Tejada or A-Rod in players. And, per Mike DiGiovanna's write-up in the Times today, we might end up getting the worst of both worlds.
One scenario has the Angels either shelling out millions and millions of dollars for Japanese phenom Daisuke Matsuzaka or millions for Barry Zito, and then making one of the Ervin-Jered-Saunders troika the centerpiece of a trade for Tejada, A-Rod, or Vernon Wells. Such a move could provide a marginal improvement in the short term, but it would cost a lot more in money and would also mortgage our future for immediate gains. Both Ervin and Jered are likely to have more future remaining value than Zito, for instance, and while Joe Saunders doesn't quite have their upside, he's important insurance against an injury to a rotation starter.
Other pondered moves would include going after Alfonso Soriano, who will be 31 next season, is coming off of his best year ever and will likely be overpaid as a result, and hasn't ever played center field, or Gary Matthews Jr., who's even older and never had a good year until last season. I would guess his chances of repeating his 2006 performance are rather slim.
I still Vernon Wells is the best match of anyone we're talking about; sure, adding a guy like Tejada or A-Rod would be great for the offense, but it would cost us a lot in money and pitching depth. Wells is a lesser hitter, but an excellent defender, and the youngest position player discussed in this post. He would probably cost less than the other guys in terms of who we would have to give up, and provide us benefits on both sides of the ball, so to speak
Labels: Alex Rodriguez, Alfonso Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, Barry Zito, Ervin Santana, Gary Matthews Jr, Jered Weaver, Joe Saunders, Miguel Tejada, Vernon Wells
