The Sad Story of Rafael Perez
There's been a lot of moaning about Raffy Perez lately. This is not unanticipated. Perez has followed up on a season in which he was clearly one of the very worst regularly used pitchers in baseball, as evidenced by this chart that lists the pitchers that posted ERAs over 6.50 while appearing in 40 games, with a start to the 2010 season that again places him among the very worst pitchers in baseball. What happened here?
Was Perez Ever All That Special?
Raffy was always a weird player. He began his career as a good not great starting pitching prospect that the Indians started to try out in varying roles as he moved up the ladder. Still, the guy was starting a lot of games, not to all that great effect, and although he got his feet wet in the big league bullpen in 2006, he was still in the AAA rotation at the outset of the 2007 season. When he came up to the big league club in May he had appeared only once out of the Buffalo bullpen and had started 7 games. It's easy to mythologize this in retrospect but Perez was not the equivalent of, say, Chris Perez. He was not even the equivalent of Jess Todd. I don't mean any disrespect to Perez but, frankly, it would be more like Zach Jackson suddenly becoming a lights-out reliever in 2008. There was no track record for Perez as a high-leverage bullpen option that I can see and as a starter he was not a guy who showed the ability to strike batters out.
So, he came up as a long man to shove at the backend of the bullpen and, almost instantly, he became an absolute stud. He was really special over a 60-odd inning span in 2007 becoming, without question, one of the best relievers in baseball. He looked so good that his odd pedigree became a total footnote and it took two years of absolute incompetence for me to even go back and realize how unlikely the Raffy P. creation story was. Chalk it up to the magic of 2007.
All that history is just a meandering way of avoiding droning over the numbers which make it clear that Perez, while he may have been somewhat lucky (.248 BABIP against, 84% of men LOB), was obviously very special at some point. He dominated the heart of opponent's lineups regularly.
Did 2008 Perez = 2007 Perez?
During the death march of 2008, Perez was one of the few bright spots. Although he didn't dominate as he had in 2007 (that was a once in a lifetime run of success), his peripherals stayed extremely strong and he certainly seemed like a reliable bullpen arm, someone that compared favorably to Betancourt during his 2003-2007 run with the Tribe. And, even if you dig, he looks like the same guy: still throwing half fastballs, half sliders. The slider, always Raffy's bread and butter, remained one of the best pitches anywhere, worth 13 runs more than your average slider according to FanGraphs if you like to consider your pitches that way.
The big difference in his 2008 and 2007 seasons is the innings jump, from 60 to 76. He didn't really appear worse for wear: he had a terrible September and October but that seemed BABIP driven and he struck out 10 while walking only 1. In other words, there didn't appear to be any cause for concern with Perez entering 2009 and, indeed, most counted him as the most reliable member of the Indians' bullpen that year.
What Happened Numbers-Wise?
Again, hardly seems worth dicing the numbers. The answer is: everything. Strikeouts plummeted, walks climbed, H/9 skyrocketed. According to FanGraphs, he started going away from the slider, seeing a 60-40 mix with the fastball, and the slider also climbed 2 MPH in velocity. Essentially, Perez just got bad: he had the ultimate pitcher's secret sauce of K:BB and that number became worse than pedestrian. So, numbers-wise, details-wise, there's not a lot that interests me here. It's just a terrific couple of years followed by an abysmal couple of years. Perez used to be good at nearly everything and now he's very bad at nearly everything. That's what happened, exactly.
Does This Ever Happen To Anyone But Us?
I've never felt the angst that others do about Raffy. This is one instance where I don't feel "Why us?!?" but instead just shrug my shoulders. I don't think Perez is all that unique in the context of baseball at large: many relievers, young and old, go from great to bad in short periods of time. Perez existed in some pretty elite company but it's not a club that you're not allowed to leave. He comps decently to Guillermo Mota, JJ Putz, and, especially, Brad Lidge. Relievers' inherent volatility is well-trod territory: part of it's the nature of the work and part of it's the nature of the kind of pitcher that gets pulled into the job. By the former, I mean that relievers are constantly either benefiting from or being snakebit by the size of their samples. A reliever can have a horrible multi-year stretch because he loses his release point for a number of innings that would be a blip for a starter. What I mean by the type of pitchers that become relievers can be best expressed through the lens of Rafael Perez.
Relievers are rarely truly elite pitchers from the time they arrive in the minors. They are, usually, pitchers that have failed as starters and then demonstrated that they have a repertoire that, though limited, can be combined with moxie to get outs in the late innings. This is Perez to a T and Perez is already well over his expected value to the major league club if you consider what his minor league track record forecasted.
Additionally, we should also consider that relievers are often artists with a pitch that they did not find as effective as a starter. When you only have to throw a handful sliders or splitters in an appearance, as opposed to a whole start's worth, you can throw them in a way that you wouldn't otherwise. Perez's slider was not an instrument of doom when he was a starter. It became one for two years as a reliever and, now, it's not again. Doesn't it seem likely that what ever he suddenly started doing in those two years to become so dominant has caught up with him? His minor league inning totals don't matter because he became an entirely different pitcher when he became a reliever.
In other words, be thankful for what you once had. His track record didn't even promise you that.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The caption for that picture should be:
“you are the lefty we’re looking for”
by Brick. on Apr 19, 2010 9:15 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
In the wake of Brantley’s return to AAA and LaPorta’s struggles I found myself thinking today…one of these times the Indians are going to have a guy come out of nowhere and be good. Perez is, of course, a very good example of a guy who basically did that.
Yep. This ended up being more of a recap than any serious analysis but I still felt it had value because I think the Perez narrative has gotten chopped and screwed over the years.
I remember reading a piece a year or so ago comparing different pitch types and their effectiveness. The piece showed, if I remember correctly, that a good slider is about the most effective pitch (on average) in the majors. But at the same time a bad slider is about the worst pitch you can throw. Raffy’s story seems pretty clear….in velocity, movement and effectiveness his slider dipped slightly from ’07 to ’08, then really became a different pitch in ’09.
Well, it actually got faster in ’09 but it “dipped” in performance. I have no idea how fast you want to throw a slider though, obviously, it varies by pitcher.
kind of like we have choo?
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Apr 19, 2010 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s a fine retrospective. I like keeping things in perspective. The Indians got more than something out of nothing, and I appreciate that.
But isn’t the real issue whether (1) the Indians should weather the storm with Perez and collect for relatively few dollars the rebound years that could and have come for Lidge, Mota, and even lesser guys like Justin Speier, or (2) whether there’s even a rebound to come?
Again, I like the narrative.. But it doesn’t (and I don’t think your point was meant to) address the practical issue of what the heck to to do with the guy going forward.
No, it doesn’t address that, largely because I don’t have a good answer. Jay is probably better equipped just via the understanding of where Perez is at in the life of his contract and what the implications of that are.
Generally, I think he shouldn’t be anywhere near a major league roster for quite some time. I think he was optioned in 2006, 2007 and 2009. I think he has one more option year left, meaning we could send him away but he’d have to make the club in 2011. As for whether or not there’s any chance for recovery, I anticipate he’ll have another good year or two later in his career. As to when, that’s a dice roll.
I don’t think cost is a concern. FanGraphs has him as a 1.5-win, $6 million player — not just in 2007, but in 2008 as well — and though their dollar formulas are simplistic, I don’t think they’re even considering leverage. BP, which does consider leverage, has him at 3.2 wins added for 2007 and another 2.4 wins in 2008 — and remember, relevant to both systems, that 2007 was a short season for Perez.
That’s two out of the last three years. So that’s the value side — maybe there’s a 25% chance that he’s good, but if he’s good, he’s worth $5 million easy and probably twice that. The cost side is, nobody makes less in arbitration than a bad reliever, so we may only spend another $5 million or so to keep him three more seasons, waiting for that big payoff.
BP sets his four-year value projection at $16.2 million, though I’m sure they’d quickly acknowledge that there is a huge standard deviation in even the proximate season’s figure, let alone four seasons into the future. FanGraphs probably would say something similar. My point is that it’s not really about the median projection, it’s about the crapshoot. Should we continue to spend 1M to 1.5M every year, waiting for the 3-win payout? Yeah, I think we probably should.
The roster spot is probably more costly to us than his actual salary, so that’s where the decision is likely to get forced at some point.
This is where the things that we can’t see, things about Perez’s makeup and the coaching staffs evaluation of why his slider died, become critically important. I don’t think in the absence of that information we can make a good answer as to whether to keep him or not. I think we can say the front office/coaching staff should make that decision based on whether or not they think his slider is recoverable in the near-term. If Hoynes was a good reporter I would hope that he asked them those kinds of questions. But I’m not sure we have insight to the information that is necessary to make anything other than a “crapshoot” answer.
For example, you can compare this outing from Perez in August 2008 with his opening outing this season. In the former, he struck out all three batters he faced, and threw 5 sliders, all for strikes. In the former his slider is distinguished in velocity, movement, and reconstructed spin from his fastball. In the latter, his slider just looks like a slow fastball. Even in the reconstructed spin profile of the pitch, his slider is simply an extension of the fastball distribution, unlike the 2008 case in which his fastball and slider and clearly distinguishable spin profiles. I can’t tell you why that change has happened – whether it is because of underlying injury, mechanics, mental approach, or some combination of the three – I can only tell you the difference exists (as long as these data are good). But that to me seems like the job of the coaching staff. A good front office will put people in place to make good evaluations of these kinds of data, and in turn respond by either working to fix the problem or recognize it as unfixable in the short term and get rid of Raffy.
by APV on Apr 20, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am in favor of keeping him around. The chance of a payoff (returning to 07-08 form), while looking slimmer everyday has to be worth more than replacing him with some turd from AAA or elsewhere. It seems a little far-fetched that we’d need the roster spot because of an influx of quality relievers.
It seems a little far-fetched that we’d need the roster spot because of an influx of quality relievers.
I think the issue is whether or not we will need the roster space to accommodate an influx of quality pitchers, no relievers per se. I think there is a pretty good likelihood this will happen in the near term given the quantity of pitching we added last season. A lot of these guys are going to need to be rostered sooner rather than later.
I think these are the guys we need to roster in the next few years:
2010
Hagadone for sure, then a whole slew of guys like Graham, Pino, SLewis, Bryson, Espino, Smith, Wright, Frias…
2011
Putnam, Alex Perez, Price, Barnes, and then guys like Berger, Jimenez, Mahalic
2012
Knapp, Gardner, House, White, plus CC Lee, Trey Haley, Clayton Cook, Austin Adams..
Those are quite a few arms.
I think we have two, possibly three more arbitration years of Perez, and no options remaining (I think, although I see Andrew thinks he has one left). Either way, he’s probably either a $1M guy next year for someone or a minor league free agent/spring training invitee. Someone we don’t need to hold onto. In thinking about relievers who “bounced back” there is going to be a huge ascertainment bias given the difficulty of identifying those who didn’t.
I’m pretty sure he’s been optioned 3 times. How many do you get?
by afh4 on Apr 19, 2010 10:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
i bookmarked this so i don’t have to trust my own math:
http://castrovince.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/11/all_i_hear_is_the_clock_on_the.html
none left
its 50% harder than counting from 1-2.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 19, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
excuse my ignorance, but i’m missing the irony
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 20, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
You were joking that counting to three is hard, but in the process of making that joke you had no trouble with calculating how much harder it is than counting to two, much more difficult math.
by VA tribe fan on Apr 20, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
ok, i wasn’t sure. i thought maybe you were saying it was ironic because i did the calculation wrong.
I am done ruining it now.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 20, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s definitely been optioned in three different seasons, and definitely for more than 20 days in each case, so he’s used up three option years. And since he’s definitely been a pro ballplayer for more than five championship seasons — as many as nine, actually — there definitely is no fourth option.
The “good news” is that he’d probably clear waivers. True, some club will think they can “fix” him, but it’s unlikely any team thinks they can fix him without being able to send him to the minors. So maybe it’s soon going to be the right time to give this guy a break from the 40-man.
But not yet. We’ll keep him around for a while longer to see what he has. Just at the bottom of the pen. And I agree with that.
by dgcambridge on Apr 20, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know. The other perspective is that the sooner we DFA him, probably the better chance we have to keep him, and the more money we save if we don’t (minor factor), and the more time we have to work on him in Columbus. I am assuming that whatever’s wrong with him, if anything, is more fundamental and less about the difference between major and minor league hitters.
No service time issue either way.
when i started reading the original comment, i thought that was how it was going to end.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Apr 20, 2010 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions

by 


















