Rolaids spells regression?
by TheDanimal on May 24, 2011 12:42 PM EDT
Email
PrintThe bullpen has been awesome so far, but how much do you trust them? Chris Perez is probably going to the All-Star game, but I freak out every time he's in the game with a one-run lead. In contrast, they could call in Vinnie Pestano with the bases loaded, no one out and Ruth, Gehrig and Meusel coming up to bat, and I'd go root around the fridge for a baloney sandwich knowing there's no way they can score.
I wanted to see if there was any correlation between my gut feeling and some basic stats, so I put together this little table of our main relievers' performances so far.
| Name | ERA | H/9 | BB/9 | HR/9 | SO/9 | BABIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Perez | 2.84 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 0.222 |
| Vinnie Pestano | 1.56 | 5.7 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 10.9 | 0.256 |
| Tony Sipp | 1.33 | 4.9 | 3.1 | 0.4 | 6.2 | 0.182 |
| Raffy Perez | 1.13 | 6.2 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 0.244 |
| Joe Smith | 2.25 | 8.3 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 7.5 | 0.314 |
| Chad Durbin | 4.82 | 9.2 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 7.7 | 0.281 |
A few things that jumped out to me:
- The two guys where my gut and the numbers seemed to contradict are Joe Smith and Tony Sipp. I usually start throwing things when Smith comes into the game, and feel an almost Pestano-like confidence when Sipp enters. But they've actually been a lot closer in performance. I was actually really surprised at how good Smith's numbers looked.
- Chris Perez might be our worst reliever. He's striking out fewer batters and walking more than anyone in the pen. He's gotten a little lucky with BABIP and a lot lucky with home runs.
- Chad Durbin is starting to look pretty good. His K/BB numbers on the season are good, and he's been a little unlucky with the long ball. And this might be a SSS coincidence, but Hoynes wrote a story a few weeks ago about how Durbin, who signed and came to camp late, finally felt like he was throwing his cutter right on April 27. Since then, he's pitched 10.1 innings with a 2.67 ERA, 10 Ks and 2 BBs. He had a rough couple outings in early April and doesn't seem to be in Manny's circle of late-game trust, but he could work his way in there soon.
- Vinnie P is the man. That is all.
66 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
While I agree that Chris Perez makes one nervous and that I keep waiting for him to blow up in a crucial situation, it’s also worth considering the results: he does keep closing out games effectively. I was curious, so I looked up Bob Wickman’s 2005 numbers (the year he had 45 saves for the Indians:
ERA: 2.47
H/9: 8.3
BB/9: 3.0
HR/9: 1.3
SO/9: 6.0
BAbip: .262
If Perez continues to pitch as he has been ptiching, he walks guys more often than Wickman did, but Wickman gave up more hits and home runs. Strikeouts are pretty similar. Both Perez and Wickman were “lucky” for BAbip, Perez somewhat more so (although I guess you’d have to try to assess the quality of the defenders behind them to make the comparison accurate).
Bottom line, 2011 Perez appears to have a lot in common with Wickman, who gave people fits, but did generally close out games.
I was thinking recently that I felt more confident with ’07 Joe Borowski than I do with the current version of Perez. Here is Borowski in ’07.
ERA: 5.07
H/9: 10.6
BB/9: 2.3
HR/9: 1.2
SO/9: 7.9
BAbip: .335
Borowski’s BB/9 and SO/9 are startlingly better than CP’s.
That’s just crazy to think like that, though.
Perez is in trouble right now. His control is way off, and he’s skating by on confidence and luck, and that definitely won’t last.
Still, Borowski literally did not have major league-caliber stuff. It’s like the difference between drunk and ugly.
Eh, I don’t know. Maybe it’s unjustified. Watching (or listening to) a pitcher without command just makes one feel helpless.
Obviously, for the future (for next year or just for a month or two down the road), Perez is a better bet to be good than Borowski was. But I’m talking confidence at the moment he enters the game right now, or during his outing.
Borowski gave up a lot of hits, but his strikeouts and walks were above major league average for relievers, which in 2007 was 7.4 K/9, 3.7 BB/9. So he was getting by on confidence and command. His BAbip was 38 points higher than his career BAbip and 35 points over .300, so it doesn’t seem like he was lucky.
Whatever he was doing, he was likely to keep doing it. GradyforPresident posted some numbers recently. 69 appearances, 47 of them scoreless. Another 16 with one run allowed. Both his FIP and xFIP were 4.12. Perez has a 3.51 FIP but a 5.23 xFIP.
His stuff really got awful in ‘08, but in ’07, to put up those numbers, it can’t have been that awful even though it was below average. (To be honest, I don’t have a TV and didn’t watch a lot of games. Mostly just listened).
Joe saved 12 of the 17 one-run leads he was entrusted with, about 70%. So far in this young-ish season, CP is 6 for 7 in those situations, the same percentage, 85%, that Dave Smith of Retrosheet found to be the historical (1930-2003, at least) winning percentage for teams holding a one-run lead after eight innings of play.
by YoDaddyWags on May 25, 2011 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s true. Still, 7.9 SO/9 is better than all but one of our 6 relievers listed by Danimal, and 2.3 BB/9 is better than all 6.
I’m not sure what the implication of these statistics is. It can’t be that Borowski circa 2007 was a better reliever than everyone in our current bullpen. As Jay said above, Borowski didn’t have major-league stuff while he was with the Indians. And, he got worse as time went on. I don’t think there’s one guy in our current bullpen I’d trade for Borowski 2007.
Borowski didn’t have major-league stuff while he was with the Indians.
Josh Tomlin has borderline major league stuff, and look what he’s been able to do. People can talk about the quality of his individual pitches all they want, but for that one season the guy was a decent closer.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
The most important thing is the end result. He blew what, five saves all season? While having an above average K/BB ratio? that’s decent.
It’s at least as decent as the season Talbot had last year, which you defended in another thread as mediocre.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2011 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s not what I’m saying. His H/9 is worse. But I think the implication is that he was legitimately good, not just lucky, even with below-average stuff. I wouldn’t mind having him (‘07 version) on the team as a backup in case CP implodes, as long as I’d only have to option Judy to Columbus.
As NTN said, it’s not outlandish to say that Borowski ’07 was a better reliever than CP ’11 has been. CP is just luckier.
Our set-up crew (with the possible exception of Durbin) is better than Borowski, although I don’t know how they’d handle the pressure of the 9th inning.
Your focus on certain stats is making you miss the point. By the numbers, across the board, the closest approximation to Borowski on our current staff is Chad Durbin. What would your confidence level be should we be running Chad Durbin out to the mound in the 9th to protect a 1 run lead?
Durbin was crappy early on and destroyed our trust right from the start, but he’s getting it back. Actually, if CP would get injured, Durbin might not be a bad option in the 9th. Your closer doesn’t have to be your best reliever. It may be better to have your best reliever in a flexible set-up role as a “stopper.”
Not very high, of course. But I didn’t mean to say that I felt lots of confidence in Borowski, just a little more than in Perez. Borowski was still scary, but Perez’s walks and lack of command add a bit more of a helpless feeling.
Borowski also had a track record as a closer, Durbin doesn’t. Durbin has been a succesful reliever though, so a little bit of confidence in him may not be unwarranted.
Whatever he was doing, he was likely to keep doing it.
This is the heart of the problem. It’s not true. Borowski’s career was all over the map, with several good years mixed with several really bad ones. There was no real reason to expect a late-career pitcher like him to be able to sustain the kind of performance he produced in 2007. In fact, the “mystery” of his success that year could be attributed, in large part, to his uncharacteristically low walk rate that year. If you were to look at his numbers at the time, you might say to yourself, “if he starts walking people the way he normally does, and keeps giving up lots of hits, he’s in trouble.” Which is what happened the very next year — his walk rate went back up to what it had been in 2006 (of course, he also gave up more hits!).
If Perez continues to lack command over his pitches, he’s in big trouble. But, I’m no less or more confident in him than I was in Borowski when he came in. There are/were big danger signs on both of them. But, I think it’s reasonable to argue that Borowski over-achieved in 2007, while Perez is under-achieving. Both are lucky, but we aren’t completely delusional if we hope that Perez gets better (there was no real reason to hope that Borowski/2007 would get better, in contrast).
Sure, I never thought Borowski would pitch better, although I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that his ERA could have been lower with better babip luck. I also know Borowski could have been worse, but if the quality of his pitching didn’t decline, he was likely to successfully close most games. That’s what I meant.
I think Perez can pitch better. But the way he’s currently pitching, his ERA is due to climb and he’s likely to blow more saves.
Are you saying that Borowski’s command, peripherals and FIP were an accident?
Aesthetically/subjectively, a pitcher with control is funner to watch than one without, as long as both are getting saves.
you have got to be kidding me. Any level of confidence in Borowski is(was) unbridled optimism. What meds were you taking in ’07?
Borowski might have scared us as much as Wickman, but both guys had at least one full season of success. Perez doesn’t have that track record, has worse peripherals, and has been pretty lucky. It’s not that outlandish to say that Joe Borowski in 2007 was a better reliever than Chris Perez through may of 2011.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Perez’s career BAbips: 274, 254, 231, 241; career: 249. This can’t really be characterized as “lucky”, which also seems an odd and inaccurate appellation for not allowing a home run.
It can, in fact, be characterized as lucky. His entire career is 182 IP, which is nowhere near enough PA for luck to “even out.” The original study on BIP luck for pitchers focused on whole seasons for starting pitchers, i.e., 200-220 IP.
If the contention here is that he has pitched insufficient innings to establish the mean to which he must eventually regress, then characterizing his career 249 BAbip as lucky or unlucky is equally meaningless.
The concern about Perez is the sharp drop in his K rate, which could be the flip side to his lack of command, or it could be something like the shoulder inflammation that put Neftali Feliz on the DL for a stint, to cite another young closer whose BB and K rates went askew from last year to this. The good news for Neftali is that he’s back up to 100 on the gun.
Essentially, big league pitchers all regress to around .300 or .310. All of them. That was the heart of McCracken’s original study.
If Perez were a hitter, you would be making a valid point.
Starters. You’ve got the 17-point rule for relievers. Career BAbips for those AL closers this year who have 1000+ BF: 302, 296, 290, 290, 289, 286, 280, 278, 268, 263, 261.
by YoDaddyWags on May 24, 2011 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
So, for no good reason, Al Hrabosky pops into my mind. Okay, let’s look him up: 5 years of double-digit saves, one spectacular season; 3000+ batters faced in his career, with a 272 BAbip. His big year, 1975, comes with a 256 BAbip. But he throws up some 220s, even after he loses his heat.
So, Perez. 249 career is definitely on the low side. Unsustainable? Probably. But for 2011, can you really say with certainty that it’s working its way up to 310? It could as easily be working its way back down to 225.
The point is, simply, BAbip is not a predictor for the rest of CP’s 2011. I’d trust TribeJay’s predictions, based upon his observations, before making a facile prediction via BAbip. As I’m sure everyone here would, too.
by YoDaddyWags on May 24, 2011 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure it is. Look at Papelbon, for instance. His career BAbip is 278. Put up a 226 in his first year as a closer, which didn’t require that he put up a 330 in his second year to even things out; he put up a 216, in fact. (After which 300, 280, 296, and 367 this year, not counting tonight).
If you’re saying that he can’t put up a 225 the way he’s looked lately, that’s one thing. But there’s no evidence for any particular number in any particular year.
It’s the “as easily” part that I disagree with. Perez’s BABIP could be working its way down to .225, but it’d be much easier to balloon to .270.
The 11 current AL starters with career BAbips under 300 have collectively posted 10 seasons of 226 BAbip (I’ve moved the goalposts one point, you’ll notice) or lower, and 15 seasons of 310 or higher. So Jay is absolutely right: there’s only a 40% chance, not 50.
And I’m sure 270, Chemo, is even more likely; I’m not sure, however, that I would characterize 270 as “ballooning.”
I simply dispute Danimal’s implication that Chris Perez’s 241 BAbip to this point is a useful indication that bad tidings are upon us.
It’s an almost completely useless indication if you’re trying to determine whether bad tidings are upon us. Pretty much all those numbers are. We’re talking about 20 innings or so.
What the numbers indicate is that Perez hasn’t pitched particularly well, but he hasn’t been too badly burned because a) a larger-than-normal number of hit balls are turning into outs and b) a smaller-than-normal number of deep fly balls are finding their way over the fence.
I don’t think this means that Perez is headed to disaster. He’s been a better pitcher in the past than he has been this year, and there’s probably a good chance he starts striking out more batters and walking fewer.
But if he doesn’t, then yes, I do think bad tidings are going to be upon us.
This. The odds that Perez or any pitcher is regressing down to a “normative” .225 are basically zilch.
Nobody is claiming it would be normative but you. The point YDW is trying to make is that there is no normative BAbip for relievers.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on May 25, 2011 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Tom Tango’s research seemed to indicate that there’s not that big a difference between starter and reliever BAbip, although there does seem to be a trend of relievers posting marginally lower rates (probably due to matchup specialization). http://baseballmusings.com/?p=68307
No, that’s not quite it. There is a normative BAbip, which in the AL since 2001 is about 296. There is the 17 point rule, which comes from a study that compared the BAbip of pitchers when they were starters to when they were relievers, and found a BAbip 17 points lower while those fellows were pitching in relief. I just saw Tango’s data, to which Danimal refers above, that shows a 3 point lower BAbip for relievers from 2004-2010. The cohort of AL closers this season collectively have a career BAbip of something like 282.
So what’s CP’s normative BAbip? Well, all you can say is that right now, it’s 249 career. In ten years it could be 303, or 268. Do closers have a better shot at low BAbips that most pitchers? Don’t know, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did.
by YoDaddyWags on May 25, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Ah, ok, that makes sense.
I also think you have to take into account that relievers throw less innings than starters, and thus it’s more likely they can carry around a low BAbip for an entire season.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on May 26, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
About six times more likely, according to one slice of data: Looking the careers of guys with 20+ saves in the AL in 1995 (and why not?), 55%, or 77, of their collective 139 seasons (minimum 100 batters faced), were within 24 points, plus or minus, of their career BAbips; 28% of the seasons had BAbips of 25-49 points higher or lower than the norm; and fully 17% deviated by 50 or more points.
For the 14 starters who logged at least 200 innings that year and who collectively assembled 165 seasons of facing at least 450 batters, 73% of their BAbips were within 24 points, 24% between 25 and 49 points, and only 3% were 50 points or more away.
Slightly more deviations were on the higher side of the norm. The closers combined for a 294 collective BAbip, while the mean BAbip for the starters was 292.
I like to italicize the bip, if I can remember, because to me the thing sounds like a grounder that—bip!—just hit a pebble and bounded over the infielder’s shoulder and on into right field.
I hope you and Chemo haven’t hurt yourselves from lugging those goalposts around.
by YoDaddyWags on May 25, 2011 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s great that he hasn’t allowed a home run, but he has been lucky in the sense that a lot of the balls hit against him are fly balls (a little over 50 percent, above his career average), and in the long run, a couple of those are going to go out of the park (8 percent of them, in Perez’s short career). Drew Stubbs, for example, took him to the warning track on Friday.
I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe CP has channeled his inner Maddux:
On another occasion, a former teammate, outfielder Marquis Grissom, recalled a game in 1996 when Maddux was having trouble with his fastball and was having trouble spotting it. Between innings, Greg told Marquis, "Gary Sheffield is coming up next inning. I am going to throw him a slider and make him just miss it so he hits it to the warning track." Sheffield did just that.
Yeah. And while CP might be the worst-performing of the core relievers this year, he’s also the one who was outstanding last year. While there’s a chance that fly balls are going to start turning into home runs and he’s going to cough up some tough losses, there’s also a chance that he starts executing like he did last year and puts up stupid-good numbers again.
For some reason this discussion gives me the injudicious optimism that it is not too long before it is Miller time! And when he descends upon Cleveland in his glass slippers clarions blazing and unleashes his years of pent-up rage, I’m gonna love me some 2011 Tribe even more.
I don’t know what you are saying by posting this (i.e. if you are dissing me or not…don’t mind one way or another), but this is a great album cover post!
When I first saw this, I thought it was a (perhaps mocking) reference to the Miller/Huff piece that I asked Paul to write for the 2009 annual — I think this was the working title. But the article ultimately was entitled “The Next Wave”, so I guess not.
That got me to thinking, had we gotten a glimpse of the 2011 roster back in 2009, when that was published, what would we have thought of it? I guess no real surprise that Lee and Victor would be gone, just sad resignation, but surely we’d have thought, who the hell are these pitchers? Masterson? Tomlin? Carrasco? Talbot? And what kind of a name is “Chris” for a Perez?
I don’t know. I just think it’s an amazing amount of turnover, and a great demonstration of pitching attrition. All the guys discussed in the Annual, maybe two of them are contributing to our staff now. One thing I conclude from this is that Antonetti and Shapiro have done an impressive job of growing a pretty effective pitching staff out of a handful of beans in just two years.
They have. But as a result, I think their m.o. might change accordingly. Let’s face it, this pitching staff is not built to last. I think you mentioned that in another post. That’s why I think they might start promoting pitchers aggressively.
I’m not terribly concerned with CPerez. His stuff has improved throughout the year. The only real concern with him is health, as he’s mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he’s not really felt 100% all year.
His K-rate is way down, but his swinging strike percentage is actually up from last year. He’s always been wild – his 4.0 BB/9 last year is his best, including college. But his first strike percentage is down significantly this year, and because he’s tough to hit, batters are chasing less (outside zone percentage down from 26% to 19%).
As I said, he’s just tough to hit. With that BB/9 history, he might never have made the bigs if he wasn’t. I’ve never studied BABIP deeply, but YDW’s numbers are really interesting. I wouldn’t be surprised if his normal BABIP is .250, at least in the near-term. He hides the ball pretty well, and he jumps at hitters. He’s not necessarily all arms and legs, but he is all hair. I just think closers only have so many bullets to fire, so as he goes through his career his BABIP will probably rise, and hopefully his BB/9 will fall some.
Bottom line, when he threw a higher percentage of pitches for strikes as he did the second half of last year, he was pretty dominant. Again, not that he’d be a command guy, but if he starts throwing strikes like he did last year, I’d expect similar results near-term.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
Related FanShots on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
