Saturday Morning Rangers Notes: K/100P & PECOTA
Joey Matschulat
Kevin Millwood (pictured) led all Texas Rangers starters in strikeouts per 100 pitches in 2008.Eight days ago, Rich Lederer of the terrific (and highly underrated) Baseball Analysts released the 2008 results of his annual K/100P study, which evaluates pitchers not on the number of strikeouts notched per batter faced or per inning, but rather per pitch -- a purportedly better indicator of a given pitcher's efficiency on the bump with respect to maximizing strikeouts while minimizing the number of pitches required to amass those strikeouts:
All of us like pitchers who can rack up strikeouts. There is no argument between statheads and the scouting community over the value of missing bats. In a nutshell, Ks are the out of choice. The more, the merrier.
We also know that pitch counts are important. The fewer, the better. As such, it seems logical that combining high strikeout and low pitch totals is a recipe for success . . . The best way to measure such effectiveness is via K/100 pitches. The formula is (strikeouts divided by total pitches) x 100.
Soundly logical and more readily correlatable to the assortment of runs allowed metrics (i.e. ERA and fielding-independent ERA, and presumably the likes of even more advanced pitching metrics such as tRA) than the classic K/9 or K/BF: a winning combination. Lederer's research did comprise the three Texas Rangers starters who logged 100-plus innings in 2008 (Scott Feldman, Kevin Millwood, and Vicente Padilla), but several other starters meriting mention were excluded for failing to reach that threshold.
Pictured below in an attempt to redress those omissions are all six Rangers starters who (a) tossed at least 50 innings in 2009 and (b) made starts in at least 50 percent of their appearances, with total innings pitched, number of pitches thrown, number of strikeouts collected, and fielding-independent ERA totals also included:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
According to the distribution of K/100P (as computed by Lederer), Millwood was the lone Rangers starter above the average (4.54 K/100P) and median (4.51 K/100P); conversely, Harrison, Feldman and Ponson all placed below the bottom 10 percent threshold of 3.13 K/100P. Not very pretty, and while Ponson was thankfully jettisoned from the picture many months ago, the other two occupants of that bottom rung figure to toss a significant quantity of innings for the Rangers in 2009. Neither is a slam dunk to measurably improve, though if I were a betting man, I would place more money on Harrison's future major league prospects than Feldman's.
On a somewhat related note, Baseball Prospectus has just published the first iteration of its PECOTA Weighted Means Projections spreadsheet, which remains the gold standard in player forecasting; unfortunately, suffice it to say that the tentative outlook for the 2009 Rangers where PECOTA is concerned is indubitably grim.
The projected offensive regression, while not at all unexpected, is alarming in its severity, with particularly dire forecasts issued for the likes of Hank Blalock, Marlon Byrd, David Murphy, Max Ramirez, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Taylor Teagarden and Michael Young -- not to mention forecasted reductions in offensive value for Chris Davis, Josh Hamilton and Ian Kinsler, three integral components of the 2009 lineup. The defensive improvement should be substantial, with a considerable share of that projected turnaround coming from the dramatically enhanced left side of the infield, and the likelihood of every single young hitter in the Rangers' lineup worsening with the bat -- such as PECOTA portends to be the case -- is quite small, but it's all a tad unsettling nonetheless.
And the pitching staff projects as ... well, awful. But what PECOTA painted as a 70-win team last season still managed to win 79 games, so the hope obviously has to be that the Rangers will again surprise with a high-powered offense that no longer boasts Milton Bradley -- or, perhaps even more novelly, cobble together a moderately effective starting rotation predicated on a stronger defensive infield and the reinforcing influx of talented young arms.
Quick Hits: Texas has agreed to terms with Byrd on a one-year, $3.06 million contract for 2009, closing out their final potential salary arbitration case.
Reader Comments (14)
Thanks,Joey.
Even though they'd be A and AAball #'s, I'd love to see Moscoso's K/100P. If I remember his line correctly from when we got him, he is efficient.
I think pitching style has to enter in greatly. I like the strikeout also, but many great pitchers have survived without it. I would be interested in Greg Maddux' rating on this scale in his prime. I see Feldman as that type pitcher. No, I am not annointing him the next Greg Maddux but for some reason I think he will continue to improve in the vein...............it also does not hurt that he will perhaps have access to Maddux' tutoring also.
Games aren't won on paper. We have to play the game. Yeah, we all like power pitchers. But in a little trip to the past, who would you rather have anchor your rotation, Sudden Sam McDowell or Randy Jones? Obviously you'd take Jones - a perennial winner. Did he ever strike out anybody?
Unless there is a trade or some mystery guest (Diamond) that breaks thru to give this team something it's not expecting, it's most difficult to see this thing winning more han 70-75 games in 2009.
This is where the projections drive me nuts. All they are is exactly what they are... projections. I seriously doubt Chris Davis, Taylor Teagarden, or Max Ramirez lose value, especially Davis. I think a lot of people are silently rooting against Hamilton because of demons past, and for who he is now. If Kinsler is projected to do worse, it's only because he had a HUGE season last year and was injured and they forecast some difficulties resulting from that injury. Kinsler was the heart & soul of our lineup, if he doesn't get on base, who is on base to knock in. There is no "crystal ball" either, the game has to be played on the field, otherwise let's go ahead and hand out season awards now.
The Rangers have never been respected by any baseball source except for sites run by actual fans of the Rangers or the team itself, and thank goodness for these sites, or the baseball community would only latch on once the team starts winning, and in the mean time I'd go nuts.
Just like on the MLB network Thursday evening edition of Hot Stove, when one guy (sorry didn't catch who it was), that I heard say "Texas is where pitchers go to die." Well sure Texas has had some misfortune landing pitchers, or keeping ones that end up developing into something fruitful, but that was a statement that makes me sick, and cannot be proven until we land or have quality pitching. It's not like the opposition comes in here and their pitcher tanks because it's Texas.
I would think that a lot of kids would take issue with that, and have pride and one day want to make people like that guy eat crow. We are tough people here, look at the people that work in this heat in the summer months, we handle it and deal with it, but in the end toughen ourselves and keep our state running.
GO RANGERS!!!
Texrollie: Jones had two really good seasons, a few league average ones, and a bunch of below league average ones. He pitched a ton of innings, which has value, but he didn't miss many bats and he allowed way too many hits.
A pitcher with Jones's overall skill set in today's game would be a very valuable back-of-the-rotation starter, but he wouldn't be a staff anchor.
The choice of Jones over McDowell isn't obvious to me. McDowell averaged a strikeout per inning for his career while producing an era+ of 112. On paper, his black ink makes him a borderline HOFer. On paper and on the field, his production was equal to or greater than Jones's.
Honestly, I don't understand your point. Obviously games aren't won on paper. I don't think that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the validity of your argument. If you are suggesting Jones would make the better rotation anchor because he was a perennial winner, regardless of the fact that the stats do not reinforce your argument, than I consider that to be Fire Joe Morgan fodder at its finest.
Jones had some excellent seasons, as did McDowell, but the fact remains that pitchers that miss bats stand a better chance at sustained success than pitchers that don't.
Josey - Agreed, the pitching staff looks terrible, doesn't it? But there are 3 bits of silver lining worth clinging to:
1. Maybe, just maybe, some of the guys who vaulted all the way up to Arlington last summer will have learned from their experience, and the second time around shows them much more prepared & effective (I'm talking about guys like Harrison, Hunter, Madrigal, & Mendoza).
2. Where we don't have quality we certainly have quantity, even after losing Hurley. So theoretically, if one guy shows over the course of 5 starts that he can't hack it - you can bring up someone else and give him a try. Names like Diamond, Moscoso, Strop, etc. are intriguing. If just 2 pitchers show they can stick in there over the long haul, I think we can safely say the rotation will be better than last year (it's hard to imagine it being worse).
3. Feliz, Holland, Main, Beavan - esp. the first two. Those first 2 guys should appear in Arlington at some point - I guess we'll see them early if everything goes horribly wrong, or later if the staff is a pleasant (or shocking) surprise. I think we're all looking forward to that. And Main / Beavan aren't far behind, I expect. I'm also eager to see if Kiker can get himself back on track this season. He could also be a pleasant surprise.
So I'm hanging in there.
Oh yeah - there's also a #4 - the pipe dream called Ben Sheets. Can't forget about that one! :)
My take on the PECOTA projections, FWIW: http://www.rangers.scottlucas.com/
Good take, Scott.
Not so sure about our unearned runs going from 107 to 75...I think there's a chance that number stays very close to what it was last year because Andrus is going to make a boat-load of E's.
Why would Hamilton regress in his third season, now that he's finally used to playing a full season, AND he's skipping the Classic to get ready for the season. Doesn't make much sense. As with Young, he might regress slightly more but he's not going to plummet. He's a professional who will do his work. This goes to show the projections don't have logical thinking behind them, which makes them unusable.
Feldman is a sinkerball pitcher. His job is to get groundball outs not strikeouts. When you talk about pitch efficiency a sinkerballer will end up throwing fewer pitches to get an out than a strikeout pitcher but that's not taken into account. That's why some strikeout pitchers have trouble getting past the 5th or 6th inning sometime. I think everyone is giving Feldman far too little credit for his performance last season. The guy just wore down at the end. Given the opportunity I think he'd end up being a solid #3 starter in any rotation with the ability to go deep into games and rack up the innings pitched, which in turn takes pressure off the bullpen.
As for projections, mine are
Kinsler has no regression and ends up with MVP votes.
Young is actually going to have a better season than a year ago (given that he's not going to be swinging a bat with broken fingers).
Hamilton may in fact regress slightly without Bradley in the lineup to protect him.
Murphy will regress as the league starts to get better scouting reports on him, but will eventually make adjustments.
Byrd will continue to provide superb and underrated work with the bat, especially in driving in runs, will start to take playing time away from Murphy, then Cruz if he struggles. and will end the season as the cleanup hitter behind Hamilton because of his ability to get the hits when it counts.
Blalock will have a resurgent year with the bat, (assuming no new injuries pop up), but will not provide Bradley's level of production or remain with the team for the full season.
Teagarden will not blow anyone away with his bat until it gets more seasoning, but will be sound behind the plate.
The real key to how the Ranger's offense performs this year though is going to be Cruz, Davis and Salty, in that order and there's really no way of guessing how they'll respond to the playing time and the leagues adjustments. My guess, Davis I think will pick up right where he left off, but may see the AVG fall a bit. Salty's going to be end up being a dud and the Ranger's will wish they traded him to Boston when they could.
And Cruz? Who the hell knows? I'd like to say he's turned a corner and is going to have a monster year but we've been down that road before. My gut feeling is that he will hit for lots of power, but will piss me off to no end with rally-killing strikeouts in key situations for the first half of the season batting in the cleanup spot. In consequence, no one will pitch to Hamilton and his production will drop off until a suitable cleanup hitter is found, (Byrd or Blalock).
May-August:
Feldman (5-6)
15/21 starts 4 runs or less allowed, 15/21 starts at least 6IP. 121IP.
Millwood (7-5)
10/17 starts 4 runs or less allowed, 9/17 starts at least 6IP. 93.1IP.
Padilla (9-5)
11/19 starts 4 runs or less allowed, 13/17 starts at least 6IP. 110IP
Mike E,thanks for the clear perspective.
I've been guilty of not giving Feldman enough credit, but when I recently saw his groundball : flyball ratio, and groundball to batters faced (neither of which I can reproduce here now), I remember thinking
a) "No wonder he gave up so many "hits" last year-- lack of range on the left side of the diamond made for few errors, but many "hits;" and
b) He could benefit as much as Millwood (less than Padilla) from our defensive upgrade on the left side.
I've often thought-- especially last year-- that with our offense, we'd have a much better record with
5 pitchers who were consistently fair (like Feldman) than with 5 who were sometimes aces and
sometimes awful (like Padilla).
That said, while our chance to get to the playoffs would be better with 5 Feldmans than with 5
Padillas, our chance to win IN the playoffs would be better with 3 Padillas than with 3 Feldmans.
So, while I'm fine with SF as our #5 (or as one member of our "5-long-man relief rotation!")
because our new defense will improve his numbers the most, I'd also be fine with trading him for a Liz or a YPetit in hopes that one of these more erratic Padilla-esque high upside guys can develop into a legitimate #2... Because this year, without the likelihood of winning even the wildcard, we should dedicate ourselves to finding (from within and from without) those true (and young) future 1,2 and 3 men for our coming dynasty's rotation. And if Feliz, Holland and Main become another legitimate 1,2,3 punch, I'm certainly okay with 2 aces, 2 #2men and 2 #3's. That's either a good problem to have or no problem at all. Hoping to develop our #6 man into a #3 man seems less
prudent for a team that still lacks a #1and 2 man.
If we don't sort through all the potential aces we can get and test, we might end up missing out on
some ace we could have had (for the cost of a #6/maybe someday#3) and accidentally trading off others we already had in our grasp...
Thanks for those who are finally recognizing Feldman as worthy of even knowing he exists. One last caveat to remember. He may actually be our number 5 starter if we sign Sheets and one of Harrison, McCarthy or a minor leaguer "nut up" and take the number 4 slot. He would certainly look very strong in that role.