Baseball Nation - All Posts

Baseball on pape

2013-05-22T01:00:10Z

Yes, this is the real thing:

I walked 7.5 guys per 9 inns. In my career. Is there anyway I should have saved 192 games? On paper, no way. Thank god I didn't play on pape
— Mitch Williams (@WildThingMLBN) May 22, 2013

It was actually 7.1 guys per 9 innings, and it's really not that hard to look these things up. But yes, Mitch Williams did save 192 games. And no, his numbers don't seem to make a lot of sense on pape.

Mitch Williams currently works for MLB Network as an analyst. I wonder if he might put on his analyst cap, and suggest some pitchers, currently active, who might be good candidates to save 192 games while walking 7.1 guys per nine innings. You know, since it doesn't look like Carlos Marmol's going to get the chance.

H.C.B.C. - Lumber Kings, literately

2013-05-21T23:18:06Z

Last week I happened across an entirely unexpected book, a just-published account of the Clinton LumberKings' 2010 season. If the subject seems odd, the timing seems odder. It takes three years to write a book about the Midwest League?

Ah, but it's not that sort of a book. It's literature and I don't use that word sarcastically and the cover's elegant and so I bought it. Of course I was in the middle of three other books already, so I haven't done more than read a few paragraphs. But it's certainly promising, if you're into this sort of thing. Here's a snippet of an interview with author Lucas Mann:

Q. You got very close to a group of devoted fans, and you were only 24 at the time. Do you think your youth helped in gaining the trust of fans and players?

A. A lot of the book is about reconciling my own outsider status, the balance between becoming part of a community while still being unable to avoid the fact that I was received with a certain deserved wariness. I do think that a combination of my age and my total lack of credentials gave me a unique entry point. It probably won't shock you to hear that saying, "I'm getting my M.F.A. at the University of Iowa," doesn't buy a lot of cachet in a baseball clubhouse.

Q. The minor league is a place where successful players inevitably leave teams behind, often just when the teams need them most. Did you find that the sense of individuals fighting to get to the next level subverted the traditional incentives of winning and improving as a team?

A. It creates an entirely unique sensibility in the clubhouse and in the stands. Everybody knows the stakes - fans want to see players win in their local uniforms, while players only find true validation when they're allowed to leave. But then it becomes about people trying to make meaning out of each season in whatever way they can. Fans balance rooting for the team with rooting for the careers of the players they've come to care about. Players try to recreate that heartening high school or college feeling of winning through teamwork, while also striving to stay extra-noticeable as individuals. I've never seen such a charged, multi-faceted sports world.

I've always wondered about the experience of following a low-level professional team, with hardly any time at all to get to know the players, and hardly any hope at all for authentic pennant-race drama. This book seems like a good place for some answers.

So you're saying there's a chance

2013-05-21T22:56:16Z

According to the soulless automatons who run the internet site coolstandings.com, Miami has about a 0.1 percent chance of making the playoffs. So if you could travel back in time, like Huey Lewis, and play the 2013 major league championship season* a thousand times, the Marlins might get to the wild card game. Who knows, they might even win it! Not too shabby, right?

* That's what MLB wants you to call the regular season, for some reason.

I know that might sound depressing if you're the Marlins fan, but here's the thing to remember: As late as September 4th, 2011, the St. Louis Cardinals had a 1.8 percent chance of making the playoffs, and they won the World Series 54 days later. I remember the day because that's when I first realized God is dead.

Anyway, those odds are probably wrong, is what I'm saying. Stiff upper lip and all that.

Twins are breaking up the band

2013-05-21T21:34:17Z

A few months ago, the Minnesota Twins signed Kyle Davies to a minor-league contract, which led to Grant Brisbee writing about the Twins' ... well, it looked like more than just a preference:

We're long past the point where we can wonder if the Twins have a preference for a specific kind of pitcher. Of course they do. That was probably clear when they started messing around with Carl Pavano, or right around the 80th start of the 137 they've given to Nick Blackburn over the last few years. But I think the Correia, Pelfrey, and even Davies signings have moved this past "preference" and into "methodically executed strategy."

Now, we should first acknowledge that Kyle Davies has not pitched for the Twins this season, and isn't likely to. But the methodically executed strategy remains well in order. We're in the Age of the Strikeout, and young Pedro Hernández LEADS THE TWINS with 4.7 strikeouts per nine innings. Really, this is spectacular. Here are the six guys who have started for the Twins this season:

4.7 Pedro Hernández
4.7 Liam Hendriks
4.4 Vance Worley
4.2 Mike Pelfrey
3.6 Scott Diamond
3.2 Kevin Correia

Most teams don't have one pitcher like this. The Minnesota Twins have five pitchers like this.

Which is why I'm so disappointed by Samuel Deduno's impending arrival. I mean, it should be highly refreshing for Twins fans. After all, Deduno's struck out more than eight batters per nine innings in his 200 career Triple-A innings. He's also walked five per nine innings, which makes two reasons he won't fit in with his teammates. But with Pedro Hernandez struggling, apparently it's time for a move.

Still, one has to wonder what in the hell the Twins are thinking. Their top pitching prospect, Kyle Gibson, has outpitched Deduno this season at the same level ... and he's 25. It's just hard to figure why the Twins aren't promoting their most talented Triple-A pitcher, when it's pretty clear he's got little left to learn at that level.

I mean, they've probably got a reason. It's just hard to figure out what it might be.

Postscript: Here's at least the beginning of a sort of a reason.

Bryce Harper and Buster Posey

2013-05-21T19:22:21Z

This is Bryce Harper:

This is Buster Posey:

All major credit cards (and PayPal) accepted.

Finding Stephen Strasburg's missing strikeouts

2013-05-21T18:43:22Z

It's the beginning of the season. But it's not quite the beginning beginning. Not everything has to mean something, but some things are starting to have meaning. We're over a quarter of the way through the season, which is juuust about where we can start freaking out over unexpected performances.

Which brings us to Stephen Strasburg. The combination of him a) returning from injury last spring and b) getting shut down last year makes me think of Strasburg as a pitcher returning from injury this season. He's not. He's a healthy pitcher who is especially rested, if anything. But if you're looking for early-season red flags, here you go:

Strikeouts per nine innings:
2012: 11.1
2013: 8.6

Strikeouts per plate appearance
2012: 30.2%
2013: 23.3%

Or, in graph form:

That trend is STRAIGHT DOWN!

After Strasburg sat for the end of the 2012 regular season and the playoffs, he's striking out fewer batters than ever before. This is something that requires some intrepid investigation. A rundown of likely suspects:

Velocity

Min. fastball velocity, 2012: 91.8 m.p.h.
Min. fastball velocity, 2013: 92.0

Avg. fastball velocity, 2012: 95.8 m.p.h.
Avg. fastball velocity, 2013: 95.5

Ah-ha! Wait …

Movement

Horizontal movement on fastball, 2012: -5.02 inches
Horizontal movement on fastball, 2013: -5.54

Vertical movement on fastball, 2012: 9.29 inches
Vertical movement on fastball, 2013: 9.11

Horizontal movement on curveball, 2012: 7.44 inches
Horizontal movement on curveball, 2013: 8.63

Vertical movement on curveball, 2012: -6.25 inches
Vertical movement on curveball, 2013: -7.88

Horizontal movement on change, 2012: -8.64 inches
Horizontal movement on change, 2013: -8.30

Vertical movement on change, 2012: 2.53 inches
Vertical movement on change, 2013: 2.77

Ah-ha! Wait … I dunno, maybe his curve is slurvier? It's not as 12-to-6? By an inch.

No. No, that's probably not it.

Swing percentages

Swing rate on fastball, 2012: 44.9%
Swing rate on fastball, 2013: 48.9

Swing percentage out of the strike zone on fastball, 2012: 63.7%
Swing percentage out of the strike zone on fastball, 2013: 68.9

Swing rate on curveball, 2012: 34.7%
Swing rate on curveball, 2013: 28.7

Swing percentage out of the strike zone on curveball, 2012: 38.4%
Swing percentage out of the strike zone on curveball, 2013: 29.7

Swing rate on change, 2012: 52.7%
Swing rate on change, 2013: 46.8

Swing percentage out of the strike zone on change, 2012: 78.4%
Swing percentage out of the strike zone on change, 2013: 60.0

Ah-ha! Hitters aren't chasing after his curve and change like they did last season! I knew it! It's probably something to do with his release point. No, his mechanics. His inverted W! His spread-legged M! His disinterested Q! There's someth …

Pitches thrown

Curveballs, 2012: 493
Curveballs, 2013: 171

Changeups, 2012: 414
Changeups, 2013: 154

Hitters have swung at 10 fewer curveballs than you would expect based on last year's rate. They've swung at nine fewer changeups. That could mean something. That probably doesn't mean anything. If you're skeptical of a hitter hitting .200 or .400 over 171 at-bats, you should also be skeptical of the swings a pitcher gets over 171 pitches thrown.

A reminder, this is what a supposedly hittable Strasburg looks like:

Your browser does not support iframes.

He's still almost certainly one of the best pitchers in baseball. Even though his strikeout rate is more Tommy Milone than Pedro Martinez right now, that isn't going to last. We're a quarter into the season. Expect Strasburg to strikeout more hitters over the next three-quarters.

Organizational droughts: second base

2013-05-21T13:00:05Z

Here's the third installment of organizational droughts, in which we look for the last homegrown star developed by each team at every position. The first part is here, where we learned that the Cardinals haven't developed a five-win pitcher since John Denny in the '70s, and the second part is here, where we learn that the Padres (and three other recent expansion teams) have never developed a four-win first baseman. Today, we turn our attention to second baseman.

There's a special wrinkle to this installment, though. I will actually double-check my work to make sure these players are homegrown! No additional charge. It's a weird strategy, but I'll make it work.

Here, then, are the last second basemen developed by each team to have a four-win season before they played for a different team. All stats are courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com.

Still with the team

Brian Roberts - Orioles (5.2, 2008)
Chase Utley - Phillies (5.8, 2010)
Howie Kendrick - Angels (4.5, 2011)
Ian Kinsler - Rangers (7.0, 2011)
Dustin Pedroia - Red Sox (4.9, 2012)
Jason Kipnis - Indians (4.0, 2012)
Darwin Barney - Cubs (4.8, 2012)
Robinson Cano - Yankes (8.5, 2012)

I was waiting for this one. Oh, Darwin Barney. Survival of the fieldiest. Thorn in the side of people who trumpet Wins Above Replacement, and bane of the people still skeptical of it, too. Barney's on-base percentage was .299, yet he supposedly had a season that was better than anything Frank White ever did? Harrumph, harrumph. Two points:

a. Think of defense like batting average. Darin Erstad hit .355 in 2000, but was he really a .355 hitter? No, but presented 676 chances in 2000, he converted 240 of them into hits. He never did it again. Never came close. That doesn't mean his .355 average is illegitimate. It still happened. Now replace "at-bats" with "tough chances in the field" and "hits" with "plays made." It might not mean that Barney is on a Hall of Fame path. It just might mean that in 2012, Barney had a Darin Erstad-like year, but in the field.

b. I'm pretty freaking skeptical, too.

If not Barney, you have to go back to Billy Herman in 1935, Cubs fans, which is pretty amazing. Though pilfering Ryne Sandberg from the Phillies probably takes some of that sting out.

Howie Kendrick will never live up to his minor-league numbers (where he was a career .360 hitter), but he's been remarkably consistent, and he's signed to a team-friendly deal that ends right around the age when most second basemen expire. The biggest surprise for me with the Angels is that the oft-traveled Sandy Alomar (Sr.) had the best non-Grich season for a second baseman overall (though he wasn't homegrown).

Recent past

Aaron Hill - Blue Jays (5.8, 2009)
Martin Prado - Braves (5.0, 2010)

Prado played over half his games at second in 2010, so even if he's not a true second baseman, he qualifies. Next up for the Braves was Marcus Giles, who was an All-Star picking up down-ballot MVP votes until he was out of baseball by 30. That's kind of the running theme of this list. But I'm sure your team's young second baseman will stay good forever and ever.

Most confusing career? For my money, Aaron Hill is the current winner. He was a first-round pick who was mediocre before he was great before he was awful before he was great before he was awful before he was great again. Makes sense.

Not-so-recent past

Edgardo Alfonzo - Mets (6.4, 2000)
Ray Durham - White Sox (4.3, 2001)
Jose Vidro - Expos/Nationals (5.3, 2002)
Bret Boone - Mariners (5.9, 2003)
Luis Castillo - Marlins (4.4, 2003)

Bret Boone probably doesn't count, as he was traded away before his first good season for Bobby Ayala and Dan Wilson. He came back to star for the Mariners, but if you want to call foul here's the runner-up.

After the 2002 season, the Giants signed both Alfonzo and Durham to five-year deals. Both of them made sense at the time, and the Durham one worked out to some extent. But they both gave their best years to the teams that developed them.

Distant past

Rennie Stennett - Pirates (4.9, 1975)
Jim Gantner - Brewers (4.3, 1983)
Frank White - Royals (4.1, 1984)
Tom Herr - Cardinals (5.6, 1985)
Steve Sax - Dodgers (5.0, 1986)
Roberto Alomar - Padres (4.4, 1989)
Mike Bordick - Athletics (4.3, 1992)
Robby Thompson - Giants (6.3, 1993)
Lou Whitaker - Tigers (4.1, 1993)
Chuck Knoblauch - Twins (6.7, 1997)
Pokey Reese - Reds (4.0, 1999)
Craig Biggio - Astros (5.0, 1999)

Stennett was just 25 when he had his superlative '75 season, but he's also remembered for what he didn't do with the Giants. Peter Gammons explains:

On Dec. 5. the day baseball's 1988 winter meetings officially opened at Atlanta's Marriott Marquis Hotel, Rennie Stennett was milling around the lobby looking for a job—as a player. Remember Stennett? In December '79 the San Francisco Giants signed him to a five-year, $3 million contract, even though he was hampered by leg injuries and had hit no homers and had only 24 RBIs for the Pittsburgh Pirates the previous season.

The five-year deal was huge back then. And it didn't make sense at the time, either.

Apropos of nothing, this is my favorite tidbit from that Gammons column, written in '88:

The Indians landed reliever Jesse Orosco, who's widely perceived to be over the hill, with a two-year, $1.675 million deal, after everyone else was passing on him.

Orosco pitched 15 more seasons.

After Steve Sax was convicted of murder, the Dodgers had an awful time finding a second baseman of note, which almost explains the Delino DeShields/Pedro Martinez trade. Almost. But the Giants have had a similarly tough time with their second-base prospects, and it was Thompson's '93 season that made them choose the 31-year-old second baseman over Will Clark when both were free agents. They chose …

… poorly.

Bordick is another example of a player who would have been treated far kinder in the fog of WAR. He was consistently an excellent fielder, but he was a pretty regular punching back for OBP fetishists at the turn of the millennium. Didn't get on base enough. It's funny that one of Bill James's most famous quotes is that bad teams look at what players can't do instead of what they can, yet in Bordick's prime a lot of analysts were doing the same thing with good-glove/weak-bat players. Also of note: Bordick was not drafted.

Pokey Reese was the Darwin Barney of his time, but no one ever thought to argue on his behalf. It's a shame the Reds stubbornly refused to call up Gookie Dawkins in 2001 so they could have an infield with Gookie at short, Pokey at second, and Corky behind the plate.

Rickie Weeks came close for the Brewers (as did Ronnie Belliard!), and a young Paul Molitor would have taken the crown if Gantner hadn't shown up, but it wasn't necessary. Gantner played 17 years for the Brewers, racking up just over 22 wins. That's more than Dan Uggla, Freddy Sanchez, and Carlos Baerga, in case you were wondering.

Nope

Rays
Diamondbacks
Rockies

It's the recent expansion teams at the bottom again, which isn't surprising or fun. The only homegrown second baseman to play enough to be worth just a single win was Neifi Perez in 1997, who was worth one win. He hit .291/.333/.444, and his OPS+ was .86. Those turn-of-the-millennium adjusted Coors stats never get old.

Ben Zobrist came over from Houston in a deal for Aubrey Huff (!), so he doesn't count. The only Ray who comes close was Akinori Iwamura, who was pretty danged good until he fell down a well, which is the only explanation for a player disappearing like that. (He's still playing, actually.)

I'm looking to the judges, and they're shaking their heads "no," so I can't include Junior Spivey's 2001 season, in which he was good for 3.9 wins. We aren't even pretending that WAR is hyper-accurate, so what's a tenth of a win among friends? Alas, there has to be a cutoff point somewhere, and four makes more sense than 3.9. Also, Spivey fell down the same well as Iwamura. Imagine Rickie Weeks being out of baseball by 2015. That's what it was like to watch Spivey come and go.

The Cubs should be the loser in this one, dang it. They should have a homegrown player from the '30s as their rep. It would have been amazing.

Oh, Darwin Barney. You've ruined everything.

When everything cost a penny

2013-05-21T12:01:35Z

Why, 50 years ago, everything cost a penny - not just the pack of baseball cards that came in the 1963 wrapper you see here. A gallon of gas was a penny. So was a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs. If you broke your arm playing baseball with your pals, the doctor would come right to the field and set it for a penny. Of course, there were no cell phones then, so you'd have to call him from a "pay phone" - but it only cost a penny. General admission to a big league ballgame was a penny. Hot dogs at said ballgame were a penny. If you lived in a city with a subway system, you could get to the ballpark for a penny. Girls would sell kisses for a penny a piece. You could buy a brand new puppy for a penny. Blue jeans - or "dungarees" as they were more properly called - were a penny per leg. Newspapers were a penny and if there'd been an internet back then it would have cost just a penny to read something like this. Everything cost a penny.