The Official MLB 2007 Thread

[dawgfan]

Well, the argument about starting pitchers really boils down to whether you want to judge purely by results (ERA, ERA+, Win Shares) without regard for factors outside of a pitcher's control, or whether you want to judge him more by the factors he has control over and which are better predictors of future performance (xFIP).

Another way of phrasing this is, which pitchers seem to have benefited from some luck and/or favorable defense behind them.

I've mixed both in my analysis, but I put more emphasis on xFIP as my list is about who are the best guys now and the most likely to succeed in the future. Related to that, trending was also critical in my rankings.

If you want to rank pitchers simply by their ERA+ and innings pitched over the last few years, then yes - Zambrano moves up. And that's a valid point of view. But I put a lot of stock in DIPs theory and the reality that measures like xFIP (while not perfect) do a better job of predicting future success than ERA. If I'm taking a pitcher and putting him in front of a neutral defense, in a neutral ballpark facing neutral batters, which guys do I want now and through the next 3 years? Zambrano falls somewhat in this criteria IMO, and thus why I have him lower than guys like Lackey, Escobar, Harang, etc.

Now, it may well be that Zambrano is one of those guys that, due to the quirks of xFIP, isn't given enough credit for his ability by that particular measure. His BABIP numbers that last 4 years are consistently better than average (.274, .252, .252, .263). I don't know if the Cubs defense has been consistently rated above average over this time by the advanced fielding metrics, but it's possible that Zambrano might be one of those outliers to DIPs that does have some ability to suppress hits on balls in play. If so, then this is a key area where xFIP (and me by extension) sell him short.

Obviously rating players is a very subjective exercise depending on what your criteria are and what metrics you use. I still have him as one of the top 15 or so starters in the game, so I hardly think I'm insulting his ability - I'm just not quite as bullish on him as others here.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

I'd like to nominate Cole Hamels to the "Young, but knocking on the door" category.

Sure, but let's give him another year or two to get a bigger picture of where he belongs. He's certainly starting off his career well.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sure, but let's give him another year or two to get a bigger picture of where he belongs. He's certainly starting off his career well.

SEASON TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO
2006 Philadelphia Phillies 9 8 4.08 23 23 0 0 0 0 132.1 117 66 60 19 3 48 145
2007 Philadelphia Phillies 14 5 3.50 25 25 2 0 0 0 167.1 150 68 65 25 3 39 156

Career Totals 23 13 3.75 48 48 2 0 0 0 299.2 267 134 125 44 6 87 301


SEASON TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO
2005 Seattle Mariners 4 4 2.67 12 12 0 0 0 0 84.1 61 26 25 5 2 23 77
2006 Seattle Mariners 12 14 4.52 31 31 2 1 0 0 191.0 195 105 96 23 6 60 176
2007 Seattle Mariners 8 6 3.86 21 21 1 1 0 0 130.2 143 57 56 13 1 37 120

Career Totals 24 24 3.92 64 64 3 2 0 0 406.0 399 188 177 41 9 120 373


Sorry for the bad formatting, but I'd rather have Hamels.

[dawgfan]

From a performance standpoint so far, I'd say Hamels and Felix are pretty damn close. Both have very good K rates and fairly low BB rates. ERA+ favors Hamels so far, but a couple of peripheral stats favor Felix - much, much better groundball rate, and Felix appears to have not had as good fielding behind him (higher BABIP rates than Hamels). Hard to say at this point if that difference is truly based on how well their teams have fielded behind them or if Felix somehow is a little worse than normal at preventing hits on balls in play. My point with the peripheral stats being, I think projecting ahead Felix has a slight advantage.

The big factor though that sways my decision towards Felix over Hamels is this - Hamels is ~ 2.5 years older than Felix. What Felix has done at his age in the majors is very favorable when compared with the other top pitchers in the game.

Both are very exciting young pitchers though, and I'd be happy to have either one.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

From a performance standpoint so far, I'd say Hamels and Felix are pretty damn close. Both have very good K rates and fairly low BB rates. ERA+ favors Hamels so far, but a couple of peripheral stats favor Felix - much, much better groundball rate, and Felix appears to have not had as good fielding behind him (higher BABIP rates than Hamels). Hard to say at this point if that difference is truly based on how well their teams have fielded behind them or if Felix somehow is a little worse than normal at preventing hits on balls in play. My point with the peripheral stats being, I think projecting ahead Felix has a slight advantage.

The big factor though that sways my decision towards Felix over Hamels is this - Hamels is ~ 2.5 years older than Felix. What Felix has done at his age in the majors is very favorable when compared with the other top pitchers in the game.

Both are very exciting young pitchers though, and I'd be happy to have either one.

True, I'd love to have Felix on the Phillies as well. I agree that both should be great for a long time to come.

Hamels does have the disadvantage of pitching in a bandbox . I'd also like to see what Scott Kazimer (sp) could do on a real team.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And since we've been discussing the subject, here's my briefly researched opinion on the top starters in the game right now in order (and I'm sure I'll overlook some guys):

Largely agree, though I think Smoltz belongs in the very good but almost elite category. Oswalt as well, though his declining K-rates are worrisome.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And since we've been discussing the subject, here's my briefly researched opinion on the top starters in the game right now in order (and I'm sure I'll overlook some guys):

Elite:
Johan Santana
Brandon Webb
Jake Peavy

Elite (when healthy):
Chris Carpenter
Roy Halladay
Ben Sheets
Rich Harden

Elite (but age and/or injuries are limiting them):
Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson

Very Good
Kelvim Escobar
C.C. Sabathia
Tim Hudson
John Lackey
Dan Haren
Aaron Harang
Carlos Zambrano

Very Good (when healthy):
Josh Beckett

Young, but knocking on the door:
Erik Bedard
Felix Hernandez
Justin Verlander
Jeremy Bonderman
Chien-Ming Wang

We've only got one season of Daisuke Matsuzaka, but he looks like a good candidate to fit into the Very Good category.

Not bad, but I'd drop Clemens from the Elite category. Even with his great ERA's the past couple years in Houston his peripherals weren't great, and now that he's a 6-inning pitcher he needs to be dropped. I also would take anyone on the Very Good list before Randy Johnson - he's doing good when healthy this year, but he couldn't hack it in the AL East. If anyone should be there it's Smoltz.

On the VG side of things, I don't see why Beckett gets called out for health concerns. He'll probably have a DL stint every year for something minor, but he seems very unlikely to get a major injury which should count for something. Bedard needs to be moved up to the VG list too, and I think Buehrle should probably be there - he's at least equal to a Harang IMO.

Carmona and especially Hamels should be put in the Young list, Hamels ahead of the two Tigers starters. Wang is good, but I don't see him improving to anything more than a #2. He seems to be at his potential. Hughes scares me much more for 3 years down the line. It's early, but Lincecum should probably also be there (and Buchholz in a year or two ).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Largely agree, though I think Smoltz belongs in the very good but almost elite category. Oswalt as well, though his declining K-rates are worrisome.

Yeah, not sure why I didn't include Smoltz - he's right there and doesn't seem to have slowed-down with age yet. Oswalt's peripherals worry me as well - I guess that's why I forget to list him, I couldn't decide whether he was still elite or slipping to very good. Slot both of those guys in between Peavy and Escobar.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Not bad, but I'd drop Clemens from the Elite category. Even with his great ERA's the past couple years in Houston his peripherals weren't great, and now that he's a 6-inning pitcher he needs to be dropped.

I disagree about his peripherals - his xFIP the last 3 years in Houston were 3.47, 3.39 & 3.76 - that's quite good. Good point about his limited innings though, and that's why I think age is dropping him from "Elite".

I also would take anyone on the Very Good list before Randy Johnson - he's doing good when healthy this year, but he couldn't hack it in the AL East. If anyone should be there it's Smoltz.

Good point on Smoltz - I knew I was going to overlook a few guys. And point taken on Randy, though I'd argue that last year was a little bit of a fluke year for Randy as he battled injury and some bad luck. If he's healthy, I think he's still "Very Good", but at his age with his recent health issues I don't think you can figure you'll get a fully healthy Randy any more.

On the VG side of things, I don't see why Beckett gets called out for health concerns. He'll probably have a DL stint every year for something minor, but he seems very unlikely to get a major injury which should count for something. Bedard needs to be moved up to the VG list too, and I think Buehrle should probably be there - he's at least equal to a Harang IMO.

Beckett has 1 season with greater than 200 IP. He'll probably get there again this year, but his nagging little injuries mean his durability isn't up there with the best guys. When he is healthy, he's quite effective, and he may soon move into the "Elite" category, but last year's blip concerns me enough to leave him in the "Very Good" category for now.

Buehrle gets a lot of credit from me for his durability, but I think his performance isn't quite as good as the other guys in my "Very Good" category including Harang - his xFIP numbers aren't quite as good, especially factoring in last year. If it weren't for that big blip last year I'd have Buehrle quite a bit higher.

Carmona and especially Hamels should be put in the Young list, Hamels ahead of the two Tigers starters. Wang is good, but I don't see him improving to anything more than a #2. He seems to be at his potential. Hughes scares me much more for 3 years down the line. It's early, but Lincecum should probably also be there (and Buchholz in a year or two ).

There's a lot of exciting young pitchers out there, and hard to know who to list and who to hold off on. I generally only listed guys in at least their 3rd season in the bigs. But yeah, Hamels is looking real good, and Carmona and Lincecum are having good years. I'm bullish on Lincecum, but his walk rate is a glaring red flag (and was the thing that scared me the most about him as a draft prospect - he walked a ton of guys in college).

You're probably right on Wang - I'm not as excited about him as the other guys I put on that list. And I may not be bullish enough on Bedard and the progress he's made - I guess I'm just waiting to see a follow-up to this year that shows it isn't a career year.

[ISiddiqui]

About the list, I'm not sure why Haren is "Very Good" and Bedard is "Young, but knocking on the door". Haren is 1.5 years younger than Bedard and has a far higher ERA+ this year.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Well, the argument about starting pitchers really boils down to whether you want to judge purely by results (ERA, ERA+, Win Shares) without regard for factors outside of a pitcher's control, or whether you want to judge him more by the factors he has control over and which are better predictors of future performance (xFIP).

Another way of phrasing this is, which pitchers seem to have benefited from some luck and/or favorable defense behind them.

I've mixed both in my analysis, but I put more emphasis on xFIP as my list is about who are the best guys now and the most likely to succeed in the future. Related to that, trending was also critical in my rankings.

If you want to rank pitchers simply by their ERA+ and innings pitched over the last few years, then yes - Zambrano moves up. And that's a valid point of view. But I put a lot of stock in DIPs theory and the reality that measures like xFIP (while not perfect) do a better job of predicting future success than ERA. If I'm taking a pitcher and putting him in front of a neutral defense, in a neutral ballpark facing neutral batters, which guys do I want now and through the next 3 years? Zambrano falls somewhat in this criteria IMO, and thus why I have him lower than guys like Lackey, Escobar, Harang, etc.

xFIP- had never heard of it before today so I went and did some research. It's completely original DIPS theory based in that only 3 stats go into it- HR, BB (and HBP), and K. There's nothing else to the statistic. It doesn't have any more depth than ERA+. Like ERA+, it adjusts for stadium and normalizes for league and that's it. It uses HR, BB, and K instead of R. Again, that's it- it doesn't take any of the DIPS exceptions into account at all or the fact that DIPS doesn't have a hugely tight correllation as some would believe. It's a neat little exotic stat but I'll take others as my primary reasoning in something like this.

SI

[k0ruptr]

Brandon Webb's scoreless streak is impressive.

But Bobby Jenks hasn't allowed a baserunner for a month lol. no where near the innings pitched, but damn thats impressive.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

xFIP- had never heard of it before today so I went and did some research. It's completely original DIPS theory based in that only 3 stats go into it- HR, BB (and HBP), and K. There's nothing else to the statistic. It doesn't have any more depth than ERA+. Like ERA+, it adjusts for stadium and normalizes for league and that's it. It uses HR, BB, and K instead of R. Again, that's it- it doesn't take any of the DIPS exceptions into account at all or the fact that DIPS doesn't have a hugely tight correllation as some would believe. It's a neat little exotic stat but I'll take others as my primary reasoning in something like this.

SI

The biggest flaws with xFIP (IMO) are that it doesn't allow for the reality that some pitchers do exhibit some control over BABIP and it doesn't account for the differences in results that groundball percentage would suggest.

That said, I've seen research that shows it's a better predictor of future ERA than ERA is, so that's why I give it greater value over ERA+ in predicting future success. And while I know that the original DIPs notion that major-league pitchers had no control over BABIP is not correct, the variations from "normal" aren't in most cases particularly significant, so it's not a completely unreasonable assumption with xFIP to ignore hits allowed and focus on the DIPs stats.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

About the list, I'm not sure why Haren is "Very Good" and Bedard is "Young, but knocking on the door". Haren is 1.5 years younger than Bedard and has a far higher ERA+ this year.

Well, I could put Bedard in the "Very Good" category - my issue with him is there's been enough variation in his performance over the last 4 seasons that I'm kind of waiting to see how he does next season to verify his improvement this year isn't just a career-year fluke. But yeah, he's not really "young" so much as "finally blossoming after years of potential".

As far as ERA+, according to both The Hardball Times and Baseball-Reference, Haren has a big edge on Bedard this year in ERA+ this year.

[ISiddiqui]

And over their careers (as short as they may be)

[stevew]

Hamels is hurt. I bet " persistent soreness in his left elbow" equals the need for Tommy John surgery. Fuck the Phils, I've about had it with this clusterfuck.

[MrBug708]

Garrett Anderson...wow

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Garrett Anderson...wow

Yeah, what the heck got into him? Like he paid for a ticket in the way back machine and pulled his ole self back out. He had 10 ribbies, one short of the AL single game record when he came up to bat in the eighth. Almost hit a seeing eye grounder that would have tied the record.

The Angels announcers pointed out he had 9 RBIs in his 18 previous games.

[Terps]

Bedard should definitely be in the very good category and approaching elite. He's the second best lefty in baseball behind Santana. He's having a Cy Young caliber season, and has put up similar numbers since before the All Star break last season.

The only thing that would hold him back from winning the Cy Young is his wins total, because he has a lot of no decisions thanks to the O's bullpen.

He had a stetch between April 23rd and May 25th where he didn't get a decision, despite only allowing 10 runs over those 5 starts (33 IP), and 3 of those starts he struck out at least 10.

[MikeVic]

Stupid Blue Jays. They could have had Halladay, Carpenter, and Escobar.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Terps

The only thing that would hold him back from winning the Cy Young is his wins total, because he has a lot of no decisions thanks to the O's bullpen.

Couldn't that also apply to Santana and Haren? Bedard has 21 Quality Starts (QS% of 78) and a record of 13-4. Santana has 20 QS (QS% 77) and a record of 13-9. Haren has 24 QS (QS% 89) and a record of 14-4.

If anything it seems that Haren has less luck with his bullpen than Bedard, along with a good deal higher ERA+.

[MikeVic]

What's the Major League record for RBIs in a game? I thought for sure 10 RBIs was some magic number, but I guess not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

What's the Major League record for RBIs in a game? I thought for sure 10 RBIs was some magic number, but I guess not.

12 is the record, held by Mark Whiten (9/7/93) and Jim Bottomley (9/6/24)
The AL record is 11, set by Tony Lazzeri in 1936.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

12 is the record, held by Mark Whiten (9/7/93) and Jim Bottomley (9/6/24)
The AL record is 11, set by Tony Lazzeri in 1936.

What team was Whiten on? I could only remember him on the Indians and Blue Jays?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

What team was Whiten on? I could only remember him on the Indians and Blue Jays?

Cardinals, on a day when he hit 4 home runs to tie a major league record in a 15-2 rout of the Reds.

Box score, just for fun
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-...d=199309072CN5

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Cardinals, on a day when he hit 4 home runs to tie a major league record in a 15-2 rout of the Reds.

Box score, just for fun
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-...d=199309072CN5

That's so odd. Why didn't they walk him, especially on that last at-bat??

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

That's so odd. Why didn't they walk him, especially on that last at-bat??

Why would they walk him in the last at-bat? That'd be an incredibly chickenshit move. It's not like the game was still in doubt, so why deny the guy a shot at the record? Out of spite? Pitch the ball and try to get him out, and if you fail, tip your cap to the guy.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Why would they walk him in the last at-bat? That'd be an incredibly chickenshit move. It's not like the game was still in doubt, so why deny the guy a shot at the record? Out of spite? Pitch the ball and try to get him out, and if you fail, tip your cap to the guy.

I don't think I would want to be the team on the other end of a record like this. Yeah, they were still losing. But it isn't a game like basketball, hockey, or football where if you're down by a certain number with 30 seconds to go... you've lost no matter what happens. In baseball, you can still catch up as long as you have at-bats left. So why not walk him, since the rest of the lineup wasn't doing as good... and it maximizes your chances of still winning.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

What's the Major League record for RBIs in a game? I thought for sure 10 RBIs was some magic number, but I guess not.

I'm pretty sure Roger Dorn had 15 in a game once. At least that's what he tells everyone.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I don't think I would want to be the team on the other end of a record like this.

Then play better.

Yeah, they were still losing. But it isn't a game like basketball, hockey, or football where if you're down by a certain number with 30 seconds to go... you've lost no matter what happens. In baseball, you can still catch up as long as you have at-bats left. So why not walk him, since the rest of the lineup wasn't doing as good... and it maximizes your chances of still winning.

If the game were within 3-4 runs at that point I might agree with you. When Whiten came up for his last at-bat, it was 13-2 in the top of the 9th, and it was extremely unlikely the Reds would come back to score 11 in the bottom of the 9th.

Like I said, walking him in that situation would've been a total chickenshit move.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm pretty sure Roger Dorn had 15 in a game once. At least that's what he tells everyone.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Then play better.


If the game were within 3-4 runs at that point I might agree with you. When Whiten came up for his last at-bat, it was 13-2 in the top of the 9th, and it was extremely unlikely the Reds would come back to score 11 in the bottom of the 9th.

Like I said, walking him in that situation would've been a total chickenshit move.

I remember a game where the Blue Jays had a 7 or 8 run lead, and they ended up losing it all in the 9th inning to the Orioles. Ever since then, I think almost any run deficit is possible to overcome in an inning.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I remember a game where the Blue Jays had a 7 or 8 run lead, and they ended up losing it all in the 9th inning to the Orioles. Ever since then, I think almost any run deficit is possible to overcome in an inning.

Possible, yes. Likely, no. And not likely enough to warrant denying Whiten the chance at the record. Man up and face the guy legitimately.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Possible, yes. Likely, no. And not likely enough to warrant denying Whiten the chance at the record. Man up and face the guy legitimately.

I guess we agree to disagree then.

[Logan]

My disagreement would come with a fastball to your ribs .

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Logan

My disagreement would come with a fastball to your ribs .

So you'd hit Whiten instead of walking him?

[dawgfan]

I've never understood the concept of a pitcher hitting a batter just because that batter homered off you earlier. You can at least make some kind of argument about throwing at a guy if he's been showing off or showing up you or your team, but simply because he's hit a homerun or homeruns off you and/or your teammates? That's like a batter deciding to throw his bat at the pitcher after the pitcher has struck you out or got you to ground into an inning-ending double-play.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I've never understood the concept of a pitcher hitting a batter just because that batter homered off you earlier. You can at least make some kind of argument about throwing at a guy if he's been showing off or showing up you or your team, but simply because he's hit a homerun or homeruns off you and/or your teammates? That's like a batter deciding to throw his bat at the pitcher after the pitcher has struck you out or got you to ground into an inning-ending double-play.

Yeah I don't like throwing at batters either.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I've never understood the concept of a pitcher hitting a batter just because that batter homered off you earlier. You can at least make some kind of argument about throwing at a guy if he's been showing off or showing up you or your team, but simply because he's hit a homerun or homeruns off you and/or your teammates? That's like a batter deciding to throw his bat at the pitcher after the pitcher has struck you out or got you to ground into an inning-ending double-play.

The only example I can think of where I'd consider it would be if a guy hits a jack, then stands there and admires it as it goes over the fence. Just put your damn head down and start running, let the base coach tell you it's over then go into your trot. Act like you've done it before and will do it again, not that each and every time is some huge ordeal. I have the same disdain for pitchers that make a big deal over a strikeout (much less common).

[Logan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

So you'd hit Whiten instead of walking him?

(and to the posts that follow)

No, I would hit a member of the team who was too much of a collective pussy to let Whiten get his shot at history. That would be like someone bunting for a base hit in the 9th inning of a no hitter where the score is 8-0.

(I believe we had this debate a few years ago when someone broke up a no-no with a bunt single, but that was in a 2-0 game...a very different situation).

[miami_fan]

24-3 in the bottom of the eighth?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Make it 26-3 top of the 9th and still only one out.
... 27-3, still just one out.

[molson]

27-3 now, with two on and only one out.

They just missed scoring 10 runs in 2 different innings - I wonder how often that's happened.

[molson]

The funniest thing is, the Orioles led 3-0 until the 4th.

Edit: And they add the field goal - 30-3!

[Lathum]

30-3

[JonInMiddleGA]

If that's 30, then it's the new AL record -- was 29 by Boston in 1950 and Chicago in 1955.

all time record is 36, by the Cubs in 1897.

[Logan]

Ahem...

First game of a doubleheader.

(edit: didn't see "game 1" in the header post...but still should be pointed out).

[miami_fan]

Is there such a thing as running up the score in baseball? 16 runs in the last two innings.

[Buccaneer]

I thought' I've seen everything but this is truly unbelievable. Never thought I would see 30 after all of these years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Logan, you gotta be kidding.