First off, I consider myself to be a big Jonathan Sanchez fan. I've been a fan of him since he burst on the scene in 2006, appearing in 27 games with the Giants his rookie season. Sanchez strikes me as a special player. On stuff alone, he is surprisingly good. Sure, he doesn't rock it up in the high 90's, but his K/9 has been over eight since 2007. The man knows how strike guys out.
However, like most pitchers with great strikeout stuff, Sanchez has been haunted by control issues. In fact, saying he has control issues is an understatement. That's like saying Lady Gaga doesn't know how to dress "properly" at a baseball game.
Sanchez's career BB/9 is 4.59 and his career K/BB ratio accordingly is 2.01. Those aren't exactly impressive, and aren't necessarily indicators of future dominance. Sure, the strikeouts are nice, but in order to really be something special at the Major League, a pitcher has to be able to throw strikes. Ask Omar Minaya and Mets fans about taking risks and giving a lot of money to a high strikeout pitcher with control issues (cough...Oliver Perez...cough).
So, much like last season, Sanchez's name suddenly has become a hot topic in terms of trade talks. After all, the Giants do have Tim Lincecum, Barry Zito and Matt Cain, and Madison Bumgarner is finally learning the Major League ropes at the end of the rotation. Sanchez could develop into a solid pitcher, but he has been too inconsistent in his career for Giants fans and management to be certain.
Furthermore, Sanchez's value has never really been higher.
If you look at the standard numbers, Sanchez blows away his first half stats from a year ago. By the All-Star break in 2009, Sanchez had a 3-8 record, a 4.69 ERA and a 1.50 WHIP (and that was INCLUDING the No-Hitter against the Padres). This year, Sanchez sports a 6-6 record, a 3.26 ERA and a 1.23 WHIP. That's a vast improvement from where he was at this point last season (or at least according to the standard numbers).
The dilemma last year was trying to sell Sanchez despite his stats looking awful. This year, the Giants don't have that dilemma. The Giants can dish Sanchez, and I'm sure many teams will be happy to take the hook. However, before Giants fans and management are ready to trade away the Puerto Rican lefty, they have to ask themselves three things before making such a deal:
1.) What can we get in return for Sanchez?
2.) How will Sanchez perform for the rest of the season?
3.) How much do we trust Madison Bumgarner?
The first question is the most obvious one. Rumors have circulated that there could be a possible Sanchez and Thomas Neal (who's tearing it up now in Richmond after a slow start) for Prince Fielder deal. ESPN's Buster Olney has shut down such speculations, saying that Sanchez simply wouldn't be enough and that Matt Cain would have to be a centerpiece in the deal (which isn't or at least shouldn't happen).
With Fielder out of the way then, the most likely scenario in a trade involving Sanchez would either involve David DeJesus or Jose Guillen, both names that have been linked to possible trades involving the Giants. Though the outfield is crowded, DeJesus would be a solid fit (as Fangraphs writer Dave Cameron points out). Guillen on the other hand, wouldn't (too much of a fluke year this season, and he's starting to decline too).
In terms of the second point, right now it's tough to tell. Sanchez's success this year has been dependent on his April, which was very good. In April, Sanchez posted a 12.21 K/9, a 2.54 K/BB ratio and had a 2.14 FIP in 24.1 IP. However, in May and June, he has sported FIP totals of 4.27 and 4.63, respectively, and his K/BB ratios have been under two the past two months as well.
Then again, Sanchez did bounce back in the second half, so Giants fans can expect the same, right? Well, Sanchez right now is on pace for setting a career high in terms of innings (ZiPS has him finishing at 177 IP; his previous high was last year when he threw 163 IP), so it's tough to tell whether or not he can return to that second half for from a year ago. We just don't know how he'll hold up as he pitches more innings (though 177 isn't THAT bad of a load).
Furthermore, Sanchez's contact rates at are a higher total than last season (77.3 percent in comparison to 73.8 percent last year) and his swinging strike percentage is down as well (from 10.9 percent to 9.4 percent). This would be okay if he was throwing strikes, but unfortunately, he isn't (his strike zone percentage is down to 45.9 percent, the lowest of his Major League career; it was 48.3 percent a season ago).
As for the last point, if the Giants deal Sanchez, the pressure will be on Bumgarner to step up and be the fourth starter immediately (which would mean a return of Todd Wellemeyer or Joe Martinez to the starting rotation). That is a lot of pressure to put on Bumgarner, especially when you consider a.) He's only 21 years old and b.) He's only pitched 24 total innings at the Major League level.
If the team has playoff aspirations, they are going to need Sanchez. And, even if they don't have playoff aspirations, it would serve them better to hang onto Sanchez (who still has two years left of arbitration) for next season, rather than going out and spending MORE money on a free agent pitcher to fill the fifth spot next year. Bumgarner is going to be a solid pitcher, but they need to develop him a little more in the Majors, for he is going to be susceptible to getting hit (as we have seen in his first two starts this year) until he perfects his secondary pitches more. Sanchez is more of a sure deal, even if he can be erratic at times.
In my opinion, unless the Giants can make a play at Fielder (which I think is highly unliklely), the Giants should stay pat and stick with Sanchez. Is he going to bounce back in the second half like he did in 2009? I don't know, but for next season, Sanchez is a cheap, valuable option that the Giants would benefit from in the rotation (his WAR is still 1.5, which values at six million; he'll probably makes about half of that in arbitration next year).
And, if the Giants want to stay in the playoff hunt, Sanchez needs to stay on this roster. Bumgarner and Wellemeyer/Martinez at the end of the rotation isn't going to get them into the postseason. But Sanchez and Bumgarner?
I think Giants fans can agree the chances are better with the latter.
Showing posts with label Pitching Rotation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pitching Rotation. Show all posts
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Better in Defeat: Comparing Madison Bumgarner's 2009 and 2010 Giants Debuts
Finally, Madison Bumgarner was called up and made his first start of the 2010 season and second start of his career. I must say, for Giants fans, it was a bit of a nerve-wrecking occasion. If his 2009 debut was filled with excitement and hope, then the 2010 version may have been one filled with dread and worry.
After all, after the failed experiment of Todd Wellemeyer so far this year, and with neither Joe Martinez, Eric Hacker or Kevin Pucetas the long-term solution, a lot of pressure rested on Bumgarner in his debut tonight against the Red Sox. If he did well, then he may have earned his spot in the Giants rotation for the remainder of the season. If he got shelled, well...then it would be back to Fresno, and the Giants would be shopping for a fifth starter by the trade deadline (which would undoubtedly mean more trades of prospects...sigh).
Well, how did he do? If you judge him by the loss and the two home runs and four runs allowed, then I can see why you might consider his 2010 debut a bit of a disappointment. However, Giants fans must keep two things in mind.
1.) He allowed all four runs in the first two innings and looked a lot better the next five innings. In fact, if you think about it, the notion that he went seven innings despite allowing four runs, four hits and a walk in the first two innings shows how efficient Bumgarner was from the third-through-seventh. Hence, rough start, but great finish in Bumgarner's debut (which evens out to above average, if not borderline good, start).
2.) This start was a heck of a lot more impressive than his 2009 Major League debut.
Sure, he allowed less runs in his first professional start against the Padres. Yes he was in line for the win in that start until the bullpen imploded against San Diego.
Look at the advanced pitch numbers from both starts though. (Courtesy of Brooks Baseball's Pitch F/X tool.)
Bumgarner's 2009 Start against the Padres
Bumgarner's 2010 Start Against the Red Sox
A few things really jump out when you compare these two graphs:
1.) Bumgarner's velocity is back up, which has been the worry about Bumgarner since his debut last year. Last September, Bumgarner was averaging 88.1 MPH on the gun and was only topping out at around 90. Against the Red Sox? The average velocity was 89.7 MPH and he was topping out at around 92.4 MPH, which was what the scouts were reporting this year (nothing came out about his velocity before his debut last season).
2.) Bumgarner mixed it up with his pitches this time around. Last year, of the 75 pitches he threw, 48 were four-seam fastballs (64 percent) and 18 were sliders (24 percent). Hence, Bumgarner showed little pitch variety in his professional debut, which was a worry because he didn't have the velocity to back up such a limited pitch repertoire. Today though? He threw 96 pitches total, showed six pitches (in comparison to five last year) and threw only 56 four-seam fastballs (58.3 percent) and 17 sliders (17.7 percent). What was even more impressive was the fact that he threw 23 pitches (24 percent) that weren't four-seam fastballs or sliders, a increase from the nine (12 percent) he threw last year.
3.) Last year, Bumgarner had only three swinging strikes of the 75 pitches he threw last September, which totals to about four percent. Today, Bumgarner had four swing and misses (4.2 percent). The Major League Average is about eight percent, so in terms of getting guys to whiff, Bumgarner has been below average in both of his starts. Hopefully, he'll continue to develop the secondary pitches and continue to have confidence in them, because from the look of it, he isn't and probably won't be a pitcher that can overpower or fool people at the plate.
Another interesting thing to take a look at (I would put it on here, but I don't want things to get too graph heavy, so I'll just hyperlink) would be the inning-by-inning breakdowns of his 2009 and 2010 starts. He definitely was a lot more efficient in terms of throwing strikes, even with the shaky first two innings and all.
Overall, the numbers from today are solid, though far from spectacular. If anything, Bumgarner may be ready to take the fifth spot in the rotation for the remainder of the year, simply because I think he's a better option than Wellemeyer or Martinez. (And at the very least, it would almost force Bruce Bochy to play Buster Posey behind the plate more since they were battery mates in Fresno.)
However, like I've mentioned before on this blog, people expecting Bumgarner to be the next Tim Lincecum may be vastly disappointed if you judge him on his first two Major League starts. He simply hasn't shown (and most likely just doesn't have) a strong ability to strike people out.
After all, after the failed experiment of Todd Wellemeyer so far this year, and with neither Joe Martinez, Eric Hacker or Kevin Pucetas the long-term solution, a lot of pressure rested on Bumgarner in his debut tonight against the Red Sox. If he did well, then he may have earned his spot in the Giants rotation for the remainder of the season. If he got shelled, well...then it would be back to Fresno, and the Giants would be shopping for a fifth starter by the trade deadline (which would undoubtedly mean more trades of prospects...sigh).
Well, how did he do? If you judge him by the loss and the two home runs and four runs allowed, then I can see why you might consider his 2010 debut a bit of a disappointment. However, Giants fans must keep two things in mind.
1.) He allowed all four runs in the first two innings and looked a lot better the next five innings. In fact, if you think about it, the notion that he went seven innings despite allowing four runs, four hits and a walk in the first two innings shows how efficient Bumgarner was from the third-through-seventh. Hence, rough start, but great finish in Bumgarner's debut (which evens out to above average, if not borderline good, start).
2.) This start was a heck of a lot more impressive than his 2009 Major League debut.
Sure, he allowed less runs in his first professional start against the Padres. Yes he was in line for the win in that start until the bullpen imploded against San Diego.
Look at the advanced pitch numbers from both starts though. (Courtesy of Brooks Baseball's Pitch F/X tool.)
Bumgarner's 2009 Start against the Padres
| Pitch Type | Avg Speed | Max Speed | Avg H-Break | Avg V-Break | Count | Strikes / % | Swinging Strikes / % | Linear Weights | Time to Plate |
| FF (FourSeam Fastball) | 88.11 | 90.4 | 4.00 | 8.09 | 48 | 31 / 64.58% | 2 / 4.17% | 0.8653 | 0.424 |
| CH (Changeup) | 85.85 | 87.6 | 7.45 | 4.41 | 4 | 3 / 75.00% | 1 / 25.00% | -0.2473 | 0.436 |
| SL (Slider) | 78.94 | 88.3 | -2.42 | 2.36 | 18 | 12 / 66.67% | 0 / 0.00% | -0.6633 | 0.475 |
| FC (Cutter) | 77.03 | 77.7 | -4.67 | 3.52 | 4 | 1 / 25.00% | 0 / 0.00% | 0.0485 | 0.481 |
| FT (TwoSeam Fastball) | 81.30 | 81.3 | 7.22 | 4.19 | 1 | 1 / 100.00% | 0 / 0.00% | -0.0624 | 0.455 |
| Pitch classifications provided by the Gameday Algorithm and may be inaccurate. Pitch Type LWTS correspond to how many runs were likely to score on a particular pitch based on average run expectancy when each pitch was thrown and what happened as a result. Negative scores indicate more effective pitches. Time to Plate is the time, in seconds, that it takes an average pitch of this type to reach the plate. This is strongly correlated with velocity, but also factors in movement. | |||||||||
Bumgarner's 2010 Start Against the Red Sox
| Pitch Type | Avg Speed | Max Speed | Avg H-Break | Avg V-Break | Count | Strikes / % | Swinging Strikes / % | Linear Weights | Time to Plate |
| FF (FourSeam Fastball) | 89.70 | 92.4 | 4.14 | 9.20 | 56 | 40 / 71.43% | 0 / 0.00% | -0.0161 | 0.417 |
| CH (Changeup) | 81.18 | 81.9 | 6.03 | 6.17 | 5 | 4 / 80.00% | 1 / 20.00% | -0.3472 | 0.462 |
| SL (Slider) | 82.42 | 85.2 | -1.72 | 2.61 | 17 | 11 / 64.71% | 2 / 11.76% | 0.1938 | 0.454 |
| CU (Curveball) | 71.79 | 73 | -6.70 | -4.22 | 9 | 7 / 77.78% | 1 / 11.11% | -0.5003 | 0.526 |
| FC (Cutter) | 85.10 | 85.3 | -1.91 | 4.97 | 2 | 0 / 0.00% | 0 / 0.00% | 0.0749 | 0.437 |
| FT (TwoSeam Fastball) | 80.69 | 81.9 | 6.58 | 5.02 | 7 | 4 / 57.14% | 0 / 0.00% | -0.5074 | 0.460 |
| Pitch classifications provided by the Gameday Algorithm and may be inaccurate. Pitch Type LWTS correspond to how many runs were likely to score on a particular pitch based on average run expectancy when each pitch was thrown and what happened as a result. Negative scores indicate more effective pitches. Time to Plate is the time, in seconds, that it takes an average pitch of this type to reach the plate. This is strongly correlated with velocity, but also factors in movement. | |||||||||
A few things really jump out when you compare these two graphs:
1.) Bumgarner's velocity is back up, which has been the worry about Bumgarner since his debut last year. Last September, Bumgarner was averaging 88.1 MPH on the gun and was only topping out at around 90. Against the Red Sox? The average velocity was 89.7 MPH and he was topping out at around 92.4 MPH, which was what the scouts were reporting this year (nothing came out about his velocity before his debut last season).
2.) Bumgarner mixed it up with his pitches this time around. Last year, of the 75 pitches he threw, 48 were four-seam fastballs (64 percent) and 18 were sliders (24 percent). Hence, Bumgarner showed little pitch variety in his professional debut, which was a worry because he didn't have the velocity to back up such a limited pitch repertoire. Today though? He threw 96 pitches total, showed six pitches (in comparison to five last year) and threw only 56 four-seam fastballs (58.3 percent) and 17 sliders (17.7 percent). What was even more impressive was the fact that he threw 23 pitches (24 percent) that weren't four-seam fastballs or sliders, a increase from the nine (12 percent) he threw last year.
3.) Last year, Bumgarner had only three swinging strikes of the 75 pitches he threw last September, which totals to about four percent. Today, Bumgarner had four swing and misses (4.2 percent). The Major League Average is about eight percent, so in terms of getting guys to whiff, Bumgarner has been below average in both of his starts. Hopefully, he'll continue to develop the secondary pitches and continue to have confidence in them, because from the look of it, he isn't and probably won't be a pitcher that can overpower or fool people at the plate.
Another interesting thing to take a look at (I would put it on here, but I don't want things to get too graph heavy, so I'll just hyperlink) would be the inning-by-inning breakdowns of his 2009 and 2010 starts. He definitely was a lot more efficient in terms of throwing strikes, even with the shaky first two innings and all.
Overall, the numbers from today are solid, though far from spectacular. If anything, Bumgarner may be ready to take the fifth spot in the rotation for the remainder of the year, simply because I think he's a better option than Wellemeyer or Martinez. (And at the very least, it would almost force Bruce Bochy to play Buster Posey behind the plate more since they were battery mates in Fresno.)
However, like I've mentioned before on this blog, people expecting Bumgarner to be the next Tim Lincecum may be vastly disappointed if you judge him on his first two Major League starts. He simply hasn't shown (and most likely just doesn't have) a strong ability to strike people out.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Three Up, Three Down: A Look at Cain and Lincecum's Last Few Starts
Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain are the two anchors of the Giants starting rotation (sorry Barry Zito!) and it makes sense why. Both are young (Lincecum is going to turn 26 years old in June; Cain is 25 years old), both have incredible credentials (Lincecum is a two-time All-Star and Cy Young winner; Cain was an All-Star last season) and both have solid stuff.
Yet it's been a different story for the two pitchers lately. Lincecum has been struggling on the mound, while Cain is excelling. You can point out the traditional numbers. Lincecum has pitched 15.1 IP and is 0-2 and has allowed 14 ER in his last three starts against Arizona, Washington and Colorado. Cain has pitched 25 IP and is 2-1 with two complete games and only allowed one ER in his last three starts.
When you look at the numbers, it's hard to see which Giants pitcher won the last two Cy Young awards.
So, what is up? Why is Lincecum performing so poorly and why is Cain suddenly looking like a Cy Young candidate again? (Though it's kind of a losing battle when your competition is Ubaldo Jimenez and Roy Halladay.)
I can point to three possible reasons:
1.) Walks (Increase for Lincecum; drop for Cain).
2.) Pitch counts (Lincecum throwing too many pitches; Cain pacing himself well).
3.) Luck (Cain's been getting lucky; Lincecum hasn't).
In terms of the first point, Lincecum's walk totals have been ridiculous the past three games. He has given up five walks in EACH of his past four starts (a total of 20 BB). Before the Houston game on May 15? Lincecum had only allowed 10 walks in his seven previous starts COMBINED.
Cain on the other hand, has been the polar opposite. Cain has only allowed four walks total in his past three starts (which explains why he is 2-1, and should be 3-0 had his offense showed up against Oakland).
What has been the reason for Lincecum's tremendous number of free passes in comparison to Cain? Cain has been better throwing strikes the past few starts, while Lincecum simply can't find the strike zone.
In his past three starts, Cain has thrown 63, 68 and 60.5 percent of his pitches for strikes. As for Lincecum? In his last few appearances, he has only thrown 59, 58 and 60.3 percent of his pitches for strikes.
Look at the Pitch F/X statistics from Brooks Baseball for Lincecum and Cain in their last starts alone:
Lincecum against Colorado on May 31.
Cain against Colorado on June 2.
Judging by the graphs, Cain was extremely efficient with his fastball, slider and curve balls, throwing the latter two pitches for strikes over 60 percent of the time. As for Lincecum, he was efficient with his two seam fastball (he threw it 76 percent of the time for strikes) as well as his changeup. However, you couldn't say the same out of his curveball (only a 44.4 percent strike percentage).
To make matters worse, Lincecum didn't make a lot of Rockies hitters whiff with his pitches, especially the fastball. Sure, his changeup was effective in terms of making batters whiff, but his changeup has always been that valuable this season (According to Fangraphs, it is valued at 3.97 runs above average per 100 fastballs). His fastballs though? He threw 38 total fastballs (four and two seamers combined) and only got Rockies hitters to whiff once.
How did Cain do with his fastballs? Out of the 41 fastballs he threw, he got Rockies hittes to whiff five times. That's not exactly mindblowing, but it certainly is better than Lincecum.
Hence, Lincecum's stuff just isn't blowing hitters away, and that may be reason why Lincecum is being more nitpicky, trying to paint the corners when he really should be just throwing, which I believe is what Cain is doing when you look at his Pitch F/X (Cain isn't K'ing guys, but he's throwing strikes, which is important). Unfortunately, this has only produced more balls for Lincecum, and more walks as a result.
It has also caused Lincecum to throw more pitches per inning.
Here is a look at Lincecum and Cain's pitch by innings in their last starts:
Lincecum
Cain
Because of Lincecum's inability to throw strikes, the pitch counts have been massive in certain innings. He threw 19 or more pitches in four of the six innings pitched on Memorial Day (including a Jonathan Sanchez-esque 35 pitches in the second). Cain has been much more efficient, for he only threw 19 or more pitches in two of the eight innings he pitched in last night's win.
Thus, the more efficient pitching style of Cain in the past few starts (to compare, Lincecum went 5.2 IP and threw 121 pitches; Cain went 8 IP and threw 113 pitches) has been more effective for Cain and the Giants in general (the Giants are 2-1 in his last three starts; the Giants are 0-3 in Lincecum's last three starts).
That being said, not all hope should be lost on Lincecum, and Cain shouldn't be raised too quickly as the Giants ace this season. Yes, Lincecum isn't blowing guys away with his fastball. Yes, Lincecum is throwing too many pitches. Yes, Lincecum is having trouble with his command and finding strikes.
However, Lincecum hasn't been getting lucky (in comparison to Cain, who has).
For starters, the numbers that really jump out with Lincecum are his groundball and flyball numbers. You think, considering he has allowed 14 ER, Lincecum would be allowing a lot of big flies, right?
Actually, that hasn't been the case. Lincecum has induced 23 groundballs and 15 flyballs in his past three starts. He has also allowed nine line drives in the last few starts as well.
What's more interesting though is the fact that over the past three starts, his flyballs and line drives allowed have gone down, and the groundballs have gone up. (For example: he induced 14 groundballs and allowed only four flyballs and one line drive in his last outing.)
Despite that improvement, Lincecum just hasn't gotten lucky. He has allowed 17 hits, which gives him a BABIP of .361 in his last three starts. Lincecum is not going to carry a BABIP that high for the rest of the season, especially considering his career BABIP (.302) hovers around the league average (.300 give or take a couple of points each year).
As for Cain, he has allowed 34 flyballs, 20 groundballs and 10 line drives in his previous three starts. How many hits has Cain given up? Only 10, which gives him a BABIP of .156 in those starts. Now, pitchers are going to have good stretches, but to have that low a BABIP and to only average six strikeouts a game during that three game span? Well...you have to credit that more to luck than anything else (but considering Cain's history, he deserves all the luck he can get).
So Cain is up, Lincecum is down. The important thing to remember? They both are fine. Sure, Lincecum's stuff isn't dominant (especially his fastball), but that was the case in the beginning of the season, when he was dealing, as well. The only difference is that unlike in April, Lincecum is overpitching and isn't throwing strikes. The strikes will come, and eventually, so will the efficient innings, and considering Lincecum's strikeout ability (he still has a 10.42 K/9 this year), Lincecum will look like his Cy Young form again.
As for Cain, he's looking solid and his efficiency is comforting, especially considering that has been an issue with some Giants starting pitchers this year (Lincecum, Sanchez especially; Zito not so much). However, Cain isn't a dramatically better pitcher than Lincecum, even during this three game stretch. Cain has just been better at throwing strikes and is getting lucky. Just as Lincecum is bound to turn it around and look closer to his career form, the same should be expected of Cain: he'll get less lucky, regress and return back to career form (though Cain's career form still is pretty good).
Yet it's been a different story for the two pitchers lately. Lincecum has been struggling on the mound, while Cain is excelling. You can point out the traditional numbers. Lincecum has pitched 15.1 IP and is 0-2 and has allowed 14 ER in his last three starts against Arizona, Washington and Colorado. Cain has pitched 25 IP and is 2-1 with two complete games and only allowed one ER in his last three starts.
When you look at the numbers, it's hard to see which Giants pitcher won the last two Cy Young awards.
So, what is up? Why is Lincecum performing so poorly and why is Cain suddenly looking like a Cy Young candidate again? (Though it's kind of a losing battle when your competition is Ubaldo Jimenez and Roy Halladay.)
I can point to three possible reasons:
1.) Walks (Increase for Lincecum; drop for Cain).
2.) Pitch counts (Lincecum throwing too many pitches; Cain pacing himself well).
3.) Luck (Cain's been getting lucky; Lincecum hasn't).
In terms of the first point, Lincecum's walk totals have been ridiculous the past three games. He has given up five walks in EACH of his past four starts (a total of 20 BB). Before the Houston game on May 15? Lincecum had only allowed 10 walks in his seven previous starts COMBINED.
Cain on the other hand, has been the polar opposite. Cain has only allowed four walks total in his past three starts (which explains why he is 2-1, and should be 3-0 had his offense showed up against Oakland).
What has been the reason for Lincecum's tremendous number of free passes in comparison to Cain? Cain has been better throwing strikes the past few starts, while Lincecum simply can't find the strike zone.
In his past three starts, Cain has thrown 63, 68 and 60.5 percent of his pitches for strikes. As for Lincecum? In his last few appearances, he has only thrown 59, 58 and 60.3 percent of his pitches for strikes.
Look at the Pitch F/X statistics from Brooks Baseball for Lincecum and Cain in their last starts alone:
Lincecum against Colorado on May 31.
| | |||||||||
| Pitch Type | Avg Speed | Max Speed | Avg H-Break | Avg V-Break | Count | Strikes / % | Swinging Strikes / % | Linear Weights | Time to Plate |
| FF (FourSeam Fastball) | 90.94 | 93.8 | 0.30 | 8.92 | 48 | 28 / 58.33% | 0 / 0.00% | 0.9153 | 0.410 |
| CH (Changeup) | 83.70 | 85.7 | -2.65 | 2.98 | 32 | 25 / 78.13% | 8 / 25.00% | -0.2762 | 0.443 |
| CU (Curveball) | 78.19 | 81.1 | 2.25 | -6.62 | 27 | 12 / 44.44% | 3 / 11.11% | -0.0760 | 0.480 |
| FT (TwoSeam Fastball) | 92.65 | 97.7 | -6.95 | 8.32 | 13 | 10 / 76.92% | 1 / 7.69% | -0.4363 | 0.404 |
| Pitch classifications provided by the Gameday Algorithm and may be inaccurate. Pitch Type LWTS correspond to how many runs were likely to score on a particular pitch based on average run expectancy when each pitch was thrown and what happened as a result. Negative scores indicate more effective pitches. Time to Plate is the time, in seconds, that it takes an average pitch of this type to reach the plate. This is strongly correlated with velocity, but also factors in movement. | |||||||||
Cain against Colorado on June 2.
| | |||||||||
| Pitch Type | Avg Speed | Max Speed | Avg H-Break | Avg V-Break | Count | Strikes / % | Swinging Strikes / % | Linear Weights | Time to Plate |
| FF (FourSeam Fastball) | 90.96 | 93.1 | -4.96 | 10.40 | 67 | 40 / 59.70% | 5 / 7.46% | -0.2139 | 0.413 |
| CH (Changeup) | 84.67 | 90.6 | -7.53 | 3.76 | 27 | 17 / 62.96% | 5 / 18.52% | -1.5402 | 0.444 |
| SL (Slider) | 85.40 | 85.4 | 2.05 | 1.36 | 1 | 0 / 0.00% | 0 / 0.00% | 0.0421 | 0.435 |
| CU (Curveball) | 76.39 | 82.7 | 3.59 | -5.12 | 16 | 10 / 62.50% | 1 / 6.25% | -1.3495 | 0.492 |
| FT (TwoSeam Fastball) | 92.20 | 92.9 | -6.96 | 7.78 | 2 | 1 / 50.00% | 0 / 0.00% | -0.0183 | 0.403 |
| Pitch classifications provided by the Gameday Algorithm and may be inaccurate. Pitch Type LWTS correspond to how many runs were likely to score on a particular pitch based on average run expectancy when each pitch was thrown and what happened as a result. Negative scores indicate more effective pitches. Time to Plate is the time, in seconds, that it takes an average pitch of this type to reach the plate. This is strongly correlated with velocity, but also factors in movement. | |||||||||
Judging by the graphs, Cain was extremely efficient with his fastball, slider and curve balls, throwing the latter two pitches for strikes over 60 percent of the time. As for Lincecum, he was efficient with his two seam fastball (he threw it 76 percent of the time for strikes) as well as his changeup. However, you couldn't say the same out of his curveball (only a 44.4 percent strike percentage).
To make matters worse, Lincecum didn't make a lot of Rockies hitters whiff with his pitches, especially the fastball. Sure, his changeup was effective in terms of making batters whiff, but his changeup has always been that valuable this season (According to Fangraphs, it is valued at 3.97 runs above average per 100 fastballs). His fastballs though? He threw 38 total fastballs (four and two seamers combined) and only got Rockies hitters to whiff once.
How did Cain do with his fastballs? Out of the 41 fastballs he threw, he got Rockies hittes to whiff five times. That's not exactly mindblowing, but it certainly is better than Lincecum.
Hence, Lincecum's stuff just isn't blowing hitters away, and that may be reason why Lincecum is being more nitpicky, trying to paint the corners when he really should be just throwing, which I believe is what Cain is doing when you look at his Pitch F/X (Cain isn't K'ing guys, but he's throwing strikes, which is important). Unfortunately, this has only produced more balls for Lincecum, and more walks as a result.
It has also caused Lincecum to throw more pitches per inning.
Here is a look at Lincecum and Cain's pitch by innings in their last starts:
Lincecum
| | ||||||||
| Inning | Pitches in Inning | Strikes in Inning | Strike% in Inning | Cumulative Total Pitches | Pitch LWTS in Inning | |||
| 1 | 11 | 8 | 72.73 | 11 | -0.834 | |||
| 2 | 35 | 21 | 60.00 | 46 | 0.467 | |||
| 3 | 14 | 10 | 71.43 | 60 | -0.862 | |||
| 4 | 19 | 10 | 52.63 | 79 | 0.505 | |||
| 5 | 22 | 14 | 63.64 | 101 | 0.592 | |||
| 6 | 19 | 12 | 63.16 | 120 | 0.258 | |||
Cain
| | ||||||||
| Inning | Pitches in Inning | Strikes in Inning | Strike% in Inning | Cumulative Total Pitches | Pitch LWTS in Inning | |||
| 1 | 10 | 6 | 60.00 | 10 | -0.834 | |||
| 2 | 20 | 13 | 65.00 | 30 | -0.350 | |||
| 3 | 17 | 8 | 47.06 | 47 | -0.532 | |||
| 4 | 11 | 6 | 54.55 | 58 | 0.611 | |||
| 5 | 21 | 13 | 61.90 | 79 | -0.034 | |||
| 6 | 7 | 5 | 71.43 | 86 | -0.561 | |||
| 7 | 13 | 7 | 53.85 | 99 | -0.532 | |||
| 8 | 14 | 10 | 71.43 | 113 | -0.848 | |||
Because of Lincecum's inability to throw strikes, the pitch counts have been massive in certain innings. He threw 19 or more pitches in four of the six innings pitched on Memorial Day (including a Jonathan Sanchez-esque 35 pitches in the second). Cain has been much more efficient, for he only threw 19 or more pitches in two of the eight innings he pitched in last night's win.
Thus, the more efficient pitching style of Cain in the past few starts (to compare, Lincecum went 5.2 IP and threw 121 pitches; Cain went 8 IP and threw 113 pitches) has been more effective for Cain and the Giants in general (the Giants are 2-1 in his last three starts; the Giants are 0-3 in Lincecum's last three starts).
That being said, not all hope should be lost on Lincecum, and Cain shouldn't be raised too quickly as the Giants ace this season. Yes, Lincecum isn't blowing guys away with his fastball. Yes, Lincecum is throwing too many pitches. Yes, Lincecum is having trouble with his command and finding strikes.
However, Lincecum hasn't been getting lucky (in comparison to Cain, who has).
For starters, the numbers that really jump out with Lincecum are his groundball and flyball numbers. You think, considering he has allowed 14 ER, Lincecum would be allowing a lot of big flies, right?
Actually, that hasn't been the case. Lincecum has induced 23 groundballs and 15 flyballs in his past three starts. He has also allowed nine line drives in the last few starts as well.
What's more interesting though is the fact that over the past three starts, his flyballs and line drives allowed have gone down, and the groundballs have gone up. (For example: he induced 14 groundballs and allowed only four flyballs and one line drive in his last outing.)
Despite that improvement, Lincecum just hasn't gotten lucky. He has allowed 17 hits, which gives him a BABIP of .361 in his last three starts. Lincecum is not going to carry a BABIP that high for the rest of the season, especially considering his career BABIP (.302) hovers around the league average (.300 give or take a couple of points each year).
As for Cain, he has allowed 34 flyballs, 20 groundballs and 10 line drives in his previous three starts. How many hits has Cain given up? Only 10, which gives him a BABIP of .156 in those starts. Now, pitchers are going to have good stretches, but to have that low a BABIP and to only average six strikeouts a game during that three game span? Well...you have to credit that more to luck than anything else (but considering Cain's history, he deserves all the luck he can get).
So Cain is up, Lincecum is down. The important thing to remember? They both are fine. Sure, Lincecum's stuff isn't dominant (especially his fastball), but that was the case in the beginning of the season, when he was dealing, as well. The only difference is that unlike in April, Lincecum is overpitching and isn't throwing strikes. The strikes will come, and eventually, so will the efficient innings, and considering Lincecum's strikeout ability (he still has a 10.42 K/9 this year), Lincecum will look like his Cy Young form again.
As for Cain, he's looking solid and his efficiency is comforting, especially considering that has been an issue with some Giants starting pitchers this year (Lincecum, Sanchez especially; Zito not so much). However, Cain isn't a dramatically better pitcher than Lincecum, even during this three game stretch. Cain has just been better at throwing strikes and is getting lucky. Just as Lincecum is bound to turn it around and look closer to his career form, the same should be expected of Cain: he'll get less lucky, regress and return back to career form (though Cain's career form still is pretty good).
Sunday, May 2, 2010
A Look at Zito, Cain and Sanchez's Performances Against the Rockies
Today was a tough one for the Giants. Aaron Rowand graced Giants fans with his presence back at the top of the lineup, Jhoulys Chacin mowed the offense down and the Giants, once again, avoided the sweep for the third straight series.
It sucks that the Giants played three, top shelf National League teams (St. Louis, Philadelphia and Colorado) and came "Oh-So Close" to sweeping each one. Then again, you can't argue with six out of nine, especially against those caliber of teams.
While the Giants couldn't finish off the Rockies today, Giants fans have to be optimistic about their chances in the NL West. What made the Giants so successful this weekend? Well, I think it's safe to say that Giants fans can thank the starting rotation, specifically Barry Zito and Matt Cain.
If you break down Zito, Cain and Jonathan Sanchez's performances over the weekend, they all show some interesting things.
First, let's look at Zito's numbers on last Friday's start (information courtesy of Brooks Baseball.net and their Pitch F/X tool).
From the information above, you can see that Zito was extremely effective with his breaking pitches, specifically his slider and curve ball. Last Friday's start was just another example of Zito's success this year: his fastball velocity is up early this year, which makes his curve and slider, even more effective.
Last year, and in 2008, when his fastball velocity waned in April, he got mashed, simply because the curve and slider were too close in terms of velocity to his fastball (Thus, it being easier for hitters to adjust). That hasn't been the case this year, and Zito arguably has been the Giants' best pitcher this April (it's either him or Tim Lincecum). Granted, his low BABIP (.209) is still a concern (how will his numbers look when his BABIP eventually rises?) but you can't argue with the results from the big lefty.
Cain also posted an impressive start yesterday, finally earning some run support, and also struck some guys out too boot (eight in eight innings pitched), en route to his first victory of the year.
What is most impressive about Cain's start though is how he bounced back despite rough second and third innings in terms of pitch count.
After the second and third, I didn't think Cain would go more than six (seven at the max). The pitch count was high at 65 after the third, and by the fourth, the Giants had already produced a decent impact in terms of run support to cover the Giants right-hander.
However, Cain buckled down and performed admirably. After throwing 49 pitches in the second and third inning combined, and only throwing 29 strikes (his strike percentage in the second and third combined was 59 percent), Cain buckled and threw 57 pitches over the next five innings (including 42 pitches for strikes). Additionally, Cain kept bringing the heat, as his fastball velocity still stayed in the 90-93 MPH range, even after he got past the 100 pitch mark.
Say what you want about Cain: he doesn't strike a lot of guys out, he puts too many ball in play, he doesn't get enough run support, etc. The kid is tough and has a lot of mental makeup, as evidenced by his excellent start against the Rockies.
Unfortunately, you can't say the same of Sanchez and his start today.
If you look at the first inning, Sanchez looked to be on his way to another unbelievable performance. He threw only eight pitches in the first inning, all of them for strikes. The second inning though, he started to show some warning signs. He threw 33 pitches in the two innings combined, 20 of the pitches for strikes (60.6 percent).
And then, in true, "Brian De Palma Post-Mission Impossible" fashion, Sanchez fell off a cliff in the fourth. He threw 32 pitches, and only 15 for strikes (46.88 percent). Though he only allowed one run that inning, he continued to struggle into the fifth, unable to regain the control he had shown in the first inning. It was safe to say, by the fifth, it was just a slippery slope for the Giants in general, especially considering the fact that Chacin was owning the Giants' hitters today like the Kardashian sisters owning athletic stars with their...ugh..."qualities".
Bottom line though for Sanchez? His problem today proved to be the problem he's had his whole career: consistency with his command.
Check out the strikezone plot for him in today's game.
Not exactly impressive, huh? A lot of white in that strike zone.
Then again, you have to expect games like this from Sanchez. He has incredible strikeout stuff, but his control is going to wane up and down. That's just the reality of who he is as a pitcher. The problem is, you wish these games happen against the Astros and Nationals, teams whom the Giants have a good shot against in terms of getting run support to back up "off" performances like this one today from Sanchez.
Unfortunately, it happens against the Rockies and against an impressive pitcher like Chacin. Oh well. You can't win 'em all, right?
What can we take away from the Giants' two through four pitchers and their performances this weekend? Zito continues to be efficient, Cain can bounce back and Sanchez needs to better composure from inning to inning if he wants to be more like Johan Santana and less like Oliver Perez.
It sucks that the Giants played three, top shelf National League teams (St. Louis, Philadelphia and Colorado) and came "Oh-So Close" to sweeping each one. Then again, you can't argue with six out of nine, especially against those caliber of teams.
While the Giants couldn't finish off the Rockies today, Giants fans have to be optimistic about their chances in the NL West. What made the Giants so successful this weekend? Well, I think it's safe to say that Giants fans can thank the starting rotation, specifically Barry Zito and Matt Cain.
If you break down Zito, Cain and Jonathan Sanchez's performances over the weekend, they all show some interesting things.
First, let's look at Zito's numbers on last Friday's start (information courtesy of Brooks Baseball.net and their Pitch F/X tool).
Pitch Statistics | |||||||||
| Pitch Type | Avg Speed | Max Speed | Avg H-Break | Avg V-Break | Count | Strikes / % | Swinging Strikes / % | Nibbleness | Time to Plate |
| FF (FourSeam Fastball) | 85.96 | 87.6 | 6.37 | 10.20 | 33 | 19 / 57.58% | 2 / 6.06% | 6.22 | 0.437 |
| CH (Changeup) | 74.24 | 75.9 | 6.88 | 2.68 | 12 | 8 / 66.67% | 1 / 8.33% | 4.15 | 0.503 |
| SL (Slider) | 78.36 | 81.5 | -3.92 | 1.81 | 20 | 14 / 70.00% | 2 / 10.00% | 8.17 | 0.476 |
| CU (Curveball) | 73.14 | 76.5 | -5.34 | -10.98 | 25 | 16 / 64.00% | 4 / 16.00% | 8.65 | 0.526 |
| FT (TwoSeam Fastball) | 85.59 | 87.5 | 9.25 | 7.59 | 29 | 18 / 62.07% | 1 / 3.45% | 4.74 | 0.438 |
| Pitch classifications provided by the Gameday Algorithm and may be inaccurate. | |||||||||
From the information above, you can see that Zito was extremely effective with his breaking pitches, specifically his slider and curve ball. Last Friday's start was just another example of Zito's success this year: his fastball velocity is up early this year, which makes his curve and slider, even more effective.
Last year, and in 2008, when his fastball velocity waned in April, he got mashed, simply because the curve and slider were too close in terms of velocity to his fastball (Thus, it being easier for hitters to adjust). That hasn't been the case this year, and Zito arguably has been the Giants' best pitcher this April (it's either him or Tim Lincecum). Granted, his low BABIP (.209) is still a concern (how will his numbers look when his BABIP eventually rises?) but you can't argue with the results from the big lefty.
Cain also posted an impressive start yesterday, finally earning some run support, and also struck some guys out too boot (eight in eight innings pitched), en route to his first victory of the year.
What is most impressive about Cain's start though is how he bounced back despite rough second and third innings in terms of pitch count.
| Inning | Pitches in Inning | Strikes in Inning | Strike% in Inning | Cumulative Total Pitches | ||||
| 1 | 16 | 14 | 87.50 | 16 | ||||
| 2 | 22 | 12 | 54.55 | 38 | ||||
| 3 | 27 | 17 | 62.96 | 65 | ||||
| 4 | 11 | 9 | 81.82 | 76 | ||||
| 5 | 13 | 8 | 61.54 | 89 | ||||
| 6 | 8 | 6 | 75.00 | 97 | ||||
| 7 | 12 | 9 | 75.00 | 109 | ||||
| 8 | 13 | 10 | 76.92 | 122 | ||||
After the second and third, I didn't think Cain would go more than six (seven at the max). The pitch count was high at 65 after the third, and by the fourth, the Giants had already produced a decent impact in terms of run support to cover the Giants right-hander.
However, Cain buckled down and performed admirably. After throwing 49 pitches in the second and third inning combined, and only throwing 29 strikes (his strike percentage in the second and third combined was 59 percent), Cain buckled and threw 57 pitches over the next five innings (including 42 pitches for strikes). Additionally, Cain kept bringing the heat, as his fastball velocity still stayed in the 90-93 MPH range, even after he got past the 100 pitch mark.
Say what you want about Cain: he doesn't strike a lot of guys out, he puts too many ball in play, he doesn't get enough run support, etc. The kid is tough and has a lot of mental makeup, as evidenced by his excellent start against the Rockies.
Unfortunately, you can't say the same of Sanchez and his start today.
If you look at the first inning, Sanchez looked to be on his way to another unbelievable performance. He threw only eight pitches in the first inning, all of them for strikes. The second inning though, he started to show some warning signs. He threw 33 pitches in the two innings combined, 20 of the pitches for strikes (60.6 percent).
And then, in true, "Brian De Palma Post-Mission Impossible" fashion, Sanchez fell off a cliff in the fourth. He threw 32 pitches, and only 15 for strikes (46.88 percent). Though he only allowed one run that inning, he continued to struggle into the fifth, unable to regain the control he had shown in the first inning. It was safe to say, by the fifth, it was just a slippery slope for the Giants in general, especially considering the fact that Chacin was owning the Giants' hitters today like the Kardashian sisters owning athletic stars with their...ugh..."qualities".
Bottom line though for Sanchez? His problem today proved to be the problem he's had his whole career: consistency with his command.
Check out the strikezone plot for him in today's game.
Not exactly impressive, huh? A lot of white in that strike zone.
Then again, you have to expect games like this from Sanchez. He has incredible strikeout stuff, but his control is going to wane up and down. That's just the reality of who he is as a pitcher. The problem is, you wish these games happen against the Astros and Nationals, teams whom the Giants have a good shot against in terms of getting run support to back up "off" performances like this one today from Sanchez.
Unfortunately, it happens against the Rockies and against an impressive pitcher like Chacin. Oh well. You can't win 'em all, right?
What can we take away from the Giants' two through four pitchers and their performances this weekend? Zito continues to be efficient, Cain can bounce back and Sanchez needs to better composure from inning to inning if he wants to be more like Johan Santana and less like Oliver Perez.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Who the Heck is Eric Hacker of the Fresno Grizzlies?
Thankfully for Giants fans, Todd Wellemeyer proved that he wasn't a complete failure last night as he pitched seven innings in the Giants' 6-2 victory over the Philadelphia Phillies (which is always a nice victory to have).
However, despite the solid performance against the defending NL Champs, there are still a lot of questions concerning Wellemeyer and the fifth spot in the rotation.
If you look at his numbers so far, they haven't been good. In his first four starts, Wellemeyer hasn't shown much control, as evidenced by his 14 walks in 21.1 innings pitched. He has an ERA currently of 6.33 and a FIP of 6.83. Also, the velocity simply hasn't been there on his pitches. He throws his fastball over 67 percent of the time, but it only has an average velocity of 89.4 MPH (the slowest of his career so far).
Granted, fastball velocity isn't everything. But when you're giving up more flyballs than groundballs (he has a 0.72 GB/FB ratio) and hitters are making a lot of contact against you (he has an 84.2 percent contact rate), then you're not doing a lot to prove that you're worth a spot in the rotation.
Is Wellemeyer capable of turning things around? He could, but I think it's safe to say it's only a matter of time before somebody replaces Wellemeyer in the starting rotation.
Now, who is that candidate?
So far, there have been two popular names: Madison Bumgarner and Kevin Pucetas.
In terms of the former, Bumgarner was the odds-on favorite to be the Giants' starting pitcher (I even went out on a limb and said he was the Giants' only option). Then Spring Training happened, he got shellacked and his velocity hovered under 90 MPH. By the end of Spring Training, Bumgarner's stock took a bigger hit than Halle Berry's after she did the movie "Catwoman."
Bumgarner has turned it around after a poor Spring Training and a poor first two starts with the Girzzlies (apparently, his velocity is back in the 90's again). Unfortunately, Bumgarner could use more time in the Pacific Coast League, and considering the fact he's only 20-years-old, there is no need to rush him.
The second option, Pucetas, like Wellemeyer, had a solid Spring. However, like Wellemeyer, that hasn't necessarily translated into a solid April in 2010. Despite a 1-1 record and a 3.98 ERA, Pucetas has a WHIP of 1.72 and he doesn't have the strikeout numbers to back it up (only 10 strikeouts in 20.1 IP). If anything, Giants fans are looking at another Joe Martinez/Ryan Sadowski with Pucetas. There is some potential that he could have a good couple of starts. Yet once Major League hitters have seen him a few times, he probably will get batted around, simply because his stuff isn't all that great.
Who do the Giants go with should Wellemeyer be an extreme detriment to the starting rotation?
How about Eric Hacker?
Chances are, Hacker's name is about as familiar with Giants fans as Bree Olson is with Christian activists (I would show you a picture of her, but I couldn't find anything tame).
Well, Giants fans should know about Hacker because he is the best pitcher currently in Fresno. In four starts, he is 4-0 with a 1.25 ERA, a 0.88 WHIP and has 24 strikeouts in 21.2 IP.
It doesn't matter if you don't know his name or not. Those numbers are impressive.
However, is Hacker's a hot start a flash in the pan? Or is it an indicator of things to come?
It's tough to tell at this point. There just isn't enough information at the Major League level to determine whether or not he could be a surprise No. 5 starter for the Giants.
Despite being 27 years old, Hacker has only one stint in the Major Leagues: a three inning sample with the Pirates last year. In three games with the Bucs, he allowed four hits, two earned runs, two walks and struck out one. His fastball averaged 90.1 MPH and he threw a slider along with a curve ball (though 34.8 percent of his pitches were indeterminable, which may be a sign he has another pitch).
Hence, the numbers aren't great for Hacker. That being said, his minor league numbers are pretty interesting.
His control has seemed to be off and on throughout his minor league career. Formerly in the New York Yankees' system, Hacker posted solid K/BB ratios in 2007 in Single-A (3.00), 2008 in Advanced Single-A and Double-A (3.44 and 3.00, respectively) and in 2009 in Triple-A (3.00).
Unfortunately, the FIP hasn't really corresponded. While his FIP was solid in 2007 (3.54) and 2008 (2.90 and 2.87, respectively), that was far from the case in 2009 (5.26 in Triple-A), during his last stint with the Yankees organization
After he was traded to Pittsburgh for Romulo Sanchez, Hacker was sent to Pittsburgh's Triple-A organization and performed well. While his K/BB ratio wasn't spectacular (1.78), his FIP was solid at 3.85, and he was named International League Player of the Week during the week ending August 9th.
What can Giants fans expect from Hacker? Like I said, it's tough to tell, but he certainly is an interesting candidate to replace WellemeyerBABIP numbers over his career (it has only been under .310 twice: in 2007 in Single-A and in 2008 in Double-A), so it is possible Hacker could be a decent, end-of-the-rotation pitcher at the Major League level should he get lucky and have a good defense behind him.
At this point, Wellemeyer is the man in the fifth spot for now. As the season progresses though, don't be surprised if Hacker becomes a much more enticing option than Pucetas or Bumgarner, especially as he continues to pitch well in Fresno.
However, despite the solid performance against the defending NL Champs, there are still a lot of questions concerning Wellemeyer and the fifth spot in the rotation.
If you look at his numbers so far, they haven't been good. In his first four starts, Wellemeyer hasn't shown much control, as evidenced by his 14 walks in 21.1 innings pitched. He has an ERA currently of 6.33 and a FIP of 6.83. Also, the velocity simply hasn't been there on his pitches. He throws his fastball over 67 percent of the time, but it only has an average velocity of 89.4 MPH (the slowest of his career so far).
Granted, fastball velocity isn't everything. But when you're giving up more flyballs than groundballs (he has a 0.72 GB/FB ratio) and hitters are making a lot of contact against you (he has an 84.2 percent contact rate), then you're not doing a lot to prove that you're worth a spot in the rotation.
Is Wellemeyer capable of turning things around? He could, but I think it's safe to say it's only a matter of time before somebody replaces Wellemeyer in the starting rotation.
Now, who is that candidate?
So far, there have been two popular names: Madison Bumgarner and Kevin Pucetas.
In terms of the former, Bumgarner was the odds-on favorite to be the Giants' starting pitcher (I even went out on a limb and said he was the Giants' only option). Then Spring Training happened, he got shellacked and his velocity hovered under 90 MPH. By the end of Spring Training, Bumgarner's stock took a bigger hit than Halle Berry's after she did the movie "Catwoman."
Bumgarner has turned it around after a poor Spring Training and a poor first two starts with the Girzzlies (apparently, his velocity is back in the 90's again). Unfortunately, Bumgarner could use more time in the Pacific Coast League, and considering the fact he's only 20-years-old, there is no need to rush him.
The second option, Pucetas, like Wellemeyer, had a solid Spring. However, like Wellemeyer, that hasn't necessarily translated into a solid April in 2010. Despite a 1-1 record and a 3.98 ERA, Pucetas has a WHIP of 1.72 and he doesn't have the strikeout numbers to back it up (only 10 strikeouts in 20.1 IP). If anything, Giants fans are looking at another Joe Martinez/Ryan Sadowski with Pucetas. There is some potential that he could have a good couple of starts. Yet once Major League hitters have seen him a few times, he probably will get batted around, simply because his stuff isn't all that great.
Who do the Giants go with should Wellemeyer be an extreme detriment to the starting rotation?
How about Eric Hacker?
Chances are, Hacker's name is about as familiar with Giants fans as Bree Olson is with Christian activists (I would show you a picture of her, but I couldn't find anything tame).
Well, Giants fans should know about Hacker because he is the best pitcher currently in Fresno. In four starts, he is 4-0 with a 1.25 ERA, a 0.88 WHIP and has 24 strikeouts in 21.2 IP.
It doesn't matter if you don't know his name or not. Those numbers are impressive.
However, is Hacker's a hot start a flash in the pan? Or is it an indicator of things to come?
It's tough to tell at this point. There just isn't enough information at the Major League level to determine whether or not he could be a surprise No. 5 starter for the Giants.
Despite being 27 years old, Hacker has only one stint in the Major Leagues: a three inning sample with the Pirates last year. In three games with the Bucs, he allowed four hits, two earned runs, two walks and struck out one. His fastball averaged 90.1 MPH and he threw a slider along with a curve ball (though 34.8 percent of his pitches were indeterminable, which may be a sign he has another pitch).
Hence, the numbers aren't great for Hacker. That being said, his minor league numbers are pretty interesting.
His control has seemed to be off and on throughout his minor league career. Formerly in the New York Yankees' system, Hacker posted solid K/BB ratios in 2007 in Single-A (3.00), 2008 in Advanced Single-A and Double-A (3.44 and 3.00, respectively) and in 2009 in Triple-A (3.00).
Unfortunately, the FIP hasn't really corresponded. While his FIP was solid in 2007 (3.54) and 2008 (2.90 and 2.87, respectively), that was far from the case in 2009 (5.26 in Triple-A), during his last stint with the Yankees organization
After he was traded to Pittsburgh for Romulo Sanchez, Hacker was sent to Pittsburgh's Triple-A organization and performed well. While his K/BB ratio wasn't spectacular (1.78), his FIP was solid at 3.85, and he was named International League Player of the Week during the week ending August 9th.
What can Giants fans expect from Hacker? Like I said, it's tough to tell, but he certainly is an interesting candidate to replace WellemeyerBABIP numbers over his career (it has only been under .310 twice: in 2007 in Single-A and in 2008 in Double-A), so it is possible Hacker could be a decent, end-of-the-rotation pitcher at the Major League level should he get lucky and have a good defense behind him.
At this point, Wellemeyer is the man in the fifth spot for now. As the season progresses though, don't be surprised if Hacker becomes a much more enticing option than Pucetas or Bumgarner, especially as he continues to pitch well in Fresno.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Could Jonathan Sanchez Have a Better Year than Matt Cain for the Giants?
After last night's seven inning, 10 strikeout performance against the Padres, Jonathan Sanchez has caught the attention of the baseball nation once again.
Not only is Sanchez ready to breakout (as I hinted this off-season), but he is already on his way in doing so. Despite his record being 1-1 in three starts this year, Sanchez is posting a 1.86 ERA, a 0.98 WHIP and a FIP (fielding independent pitching on an ERA scale) of 1.46.
After years of speculation and disappointment, Sanchez is finally reaching his potential and is another important cog in the Giants' already impressive starting pitching rotation.
However, one question remains that isn't being widely discussed amongst those in Giants nation:
Could Sanchez be a better pitcher in 2010 than Matt Cain?
When you look at the big picture, it doesn't matter. The Giants have both pitchers, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal, right? As long as they both do well, it's a win-win for the Giants.
That is true, but to a point.
First off, Cain is coming off a very big extension (he'll be owed $27.5 million dollars over the next three seasons), so Cain is being paid and treated as the Giants' number two option of the future behind Tim Lincecum.
However, while Sanchez did sign an extension this year to avoid arbitration for another year (he signed a one-year $2.1 million deal this off-season), Sanchez could make a case that he may be just as valuable if not more than Cain after the 2010 season is finished.
Like I said, it know it sounds like blasphemy to some. Saying Sanchez is better than Cain to Giants fans is like saying Rocky II is better than Rocky I to die hard movie lovers (though I like Rocky IV the best, simply for guilty pleasure/patriotic/great music during the fight scene reasons).
If you look deeper at the numbers though, the gap between Cain and Sanchez is closer than it seems.
First off, look at what Sanchez and Cain have done so far in three starts:
Cain: 0-0 W-L, 18.2 IP, 3.86 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 2.91 FIP, 5.79 K/9, 1.45 BB/9, 4.00 K/BB, .295 BABIP, 1.55 GB/FB.
Sanchez: 1-1 W-L, 19.1 IP, 1.86 ERA, 0.98 WHIP, 1.46 FIP, 12.57 K/9, 3.72 BB/9, 3.38 K/BB, .286 BABIP, 0.70 GB/FB.
Now, these are just their numbers after three starts. They could easily change for the better or worse over the course of the season. However, after looking at these numbers so far it's safe to say that Sanchez has performed better and has seemed to be the more impressive and dominating pitcher.
I know Cain fans (and I'm one of them too, by the way) will say "Cain is walking less guys! Things will turn around for him soon! Sanchez walks too many and that's dangerous if you're a pitcher!"
I agree. Cain's walk rate is almost a point and a half lower than it was last year (his 3.02 BB/9 was the lowest of his Major League career). However, the concerning aspect of Cain's pitching so far this year has to be his strikeout rate, which is 5.45. While I think it could improve as the season goes on, the decrease in strikeouts over Cain's career hasn't made Giants fans feel easy.
In 2006, his first full year with the Giants, his K/9 was 8.45. Last year, it was 7.07.
Sanchez on the other hand, has improved his ability to strike out guys as he has gained more Major League experience (his rookie year in 2006, his K/9 was 7.45; last year, it was 9.75).
What could be a reason for this? Well, despite having an advantage in velocity (Cain averaged 92.6 MPH on his fastball last year while Sanchez averaged 91.7 MPH), Cain simply allows too much contact as a pitcher. His contact rate last year was 80.7 percent and that has been the same case this year as he has a contact rate of 83.2 percent. In comparison, Sanchez has never had a contact rate over 78.4 percent, and that was during his rookie season (his contact rate was 73.8 percent in 2009, and is currently 71.6 percent this year).
(Furthermore, to put things into context, the league average contact rate for a pitcher is around 80 percent, usually.)
Another startling category where Sanchez holds a significant advantage is Sanchez' swinging strike percentage, which has been superior to Cain's over their respective careers. Last year, Sanchez had a swinging strike percentage of 10.9 percent (he has only had a swinging strike percentage under 10 once, back in 2006 when it was 9.4 percent). This season he has been unbelievable in that category, posting a 14 percent swinging strike percentage.
As for Cain? His swinging strike percentage last year was 9.1. His highest swinging strike percentage was 9.4 percent in 2008, and this year, it has suffered a big drop through the first three games as it hovers at 7.1 percent.
What does the mean? Well, considering the league average in this category is around 8.5 percent from season to season, Sanchez is a superior pitcher when it comes to missing bats while Cain may be little better than league average in terms of making batters miss.
Overall, there could be a lot of reasons why Sanchez has performed better this season and is a better strikeout pitcher than Cain. It could be Sanchez's delivery, which has been recognized as very deceptive by many baseball experts and scouts throughout Major League Baseball. It could be that Sanchez's breaking stuff and secondary pitches are far superior than Cain's, which explains why Sanchez is able to strikeout guys at a better rate than Cain despite having a slower fastball.
Whatever the reason, in my opinion, if Sanchez can't be considered better than Cain, then he should be at the same level or very close to the level of the Giants' 25-year-old right hander. While Cain does walk less guys and has been a better groundball pitcher this season, neither of those things have been very characteristic of Cain in his career. He has never had a GB/FB ratio over one (Sanchez on the other hand did it twice in 2007 and 2008), and while his walks have declined every year since his first full year in the rotation, he certainly is not a sub-two BB/9 pitcher.
Granted, Cain and Sanchez in the grand scheme of things is a wonderful thing for the Giants and San Francisco baseball fans. They both will provide great numbers and great outings throughout the course of the 2010 season.
That being said, things will get tough after the 2010 season when Sanchez will hit his second year of arbitration. If he ends up having a better year than Cain in 2010, the Giants will be hard-pressed to give him a "Cain-esque" contract by Sanchez's management team.
And, with re-signing Tim Lincecum, Pablo Sandoval and Buster Posey to long-term deals a priority down the road, it will be interesting to see if managing partner Bill Neukom will be open to shelling out that kind of cash to the 27-year-old left-hander from Puerto Rico.
Not only is Sanchez ready to breakout (as I hinted this off-season), but he is already on his way in doing so. Despite his record being 1-1 in three starts this year, Sanchez is posting a 1.86 ERA, a 0.98 WHIP and a FIP (fielding independent pitching on an ERA scale) of 1.46.
After years of speculation and disappointment, Sanchez is finally reaching his potential and is another important cog in the Giants' already impressive starting pitching rotation.
However, one question remains that isn't being widely discussed amongst those in Giants nation:
Could Sanchez be a better pitcher in 2010 than Matt Cain?
When you look at the big picture, it doesn't matter. The Giants have both pitchers, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal, right? As long as they both do well, it's a win-win for the Giants.
That is true, but to a point.
First off, Cain is coming off a very big extension (he'll be owed $27.5 million dollars over the next three seasons), so Cain is being paid and treated as the Giants' number two option of the future behind Tim Lincecum.
However, while Sanchez did sign an extension this year to avoid arbitration for another year (he signed a one-year $2.1 million deal this off-season), Sanchez could make a case that he may be just as valuable if not more than Cain after the 2010 season is finished.
Like I said, it know it sounds like blasphemy to some. Saying Sanchez is better than Cain to Giants fans is like saying Rocky II is better than Rocky I to die hard movie lovers (though I like Rocky IV the best, simply for guilty pleasure/patriotic/great music during the fight scene reasons).
If you look deeper at the numbers though, the gap between Cain and Sanchez is closer than it seems.
First off, look at what Sanchez and Cain have done so far in three starts:
Cain: 0-0 W-L, 18.2 IP, 3.86 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 2.91 FIP, 5.79 K/9, 1.45 BB/9, 4.00 K/BB, .295 BABIP, 1.55 GB/FB.
Sanchez: 1-1 W-L, 19.1 IP, 1.86 ERA, 0.98 WHIP, 1.46 FIP, 12.57 K/9, 3.72 BB/9, 3.38 K/BB, .286 BABIP, 0.70 GB/FB.
Now, these are just their numbers after three starts. They could easily change for the better or worse over the course of the season. However, after looking at these numbers so far it's safe to say that Sanchez has performed better and has seemed to be the more impressive and dominating pitcher.
I know Cain fans (and I'm one of them too, by the way) will say "Cain is walking less guys! Things will turn around for him soon! Sanchez walks too many and that's dangerous if you're a pitcher!"
I agree. Cain's walk rate is almost a point and a half lower than it was last year (his 3.02 BB/9 was the lowest of his Major League career). However, the concerning aspect of Cain's pitching so far this year has to be his strikeout rate, which is 5.45. While I think it could improve as the season goes on, the decrease in strikeouts over Cain's career hasn't made Giants fans feel easy.
In 2006, his first full year with the Giants, his K/9 was 8.45. Last year, it was 7.07.
Sanchez on the other hand, has improved his ability to strike out guys as he has gained more Major League experience (his rookie year in 2006, his K/9 was 7.45; last year, it was 9.75).
What could be a reason for this? Well, despite having an advantage in velocity (Cain averaged 92.6 MPH on his fastball last year while Sanchez averaged 91.7 MPH), Cain simply allows too much contact as a pitcher. His contact rate last year was 80.7 percent and that has been the same case this year as he has a contact rate of 83.2 percent. In comparison, Sanchez has never had a contact rate over 78.4 percent, and that was during his rookie season (his contact rate was 73.8 percent in 2009, and is currently 71.6 percent this year).
(Furthermore, to put things into context, the league average contact rate for a pitcher is around 80 percent, usually.)
Another startling category where Sanchez holds a significant advantage is Sanchez' swinging strike percentage, which has been superior to Cain's over their respective careers. Last year, Sanchez had a swinging strike percentage of 10.9 percent (he has only had a swinging strike percentage under 10 once, back in 2006 when it was 9.4 percent). This season he has been unbelievable in that category, posting a 14 percent swinging strike percentage.
As for Cain? His swinging strike percentage last year was 9.1. His highest swinging strike percentage was 9.4 percent in 2008, and this year, it has suffered a big drop through the first three games as it hovers at 7.1 percent.
What does the mean? Well, considering the league average in this category is around 8.5 percent from season to season, Sanchez is a superior pitcher when it comes to missing bats while Cain may be little better than league average in terms of making batters miss.
Overall, there could be a lot of reasons why Sanchez has performed better this season and is a better strikeout pitcher than Cain. It could be Sanchez's delivery, which has been recognized as very deceptive by many baseball experts and scouts throughout Major League Baseball. It could be that Sanchez's breaking stuff and secondary pitches are far superior than Cain's, which explains why Sanchez is able to strikeout guys at a better rate than Cain despite having a slower fastball.
Whatever the reason, in my opinion, if Sanchez can't be considered better than Cain, then he should be at the same level or very close to the level of the Giants' 25-year-old right hander. While Cain does walk less guys and has been a better groundball pitcher this season, neither of those things have been very characteristic of Cain in his career. He has never had a GB/FB ratio over one (Sanchez on the other hand did it twice in 2007 and 2008), and while his walks have declined every year since his first full year in the rotation, he certainly is not a sub-two BB/9 pitcher.
Granted, Cain and Sanchez in the grand scheme of things is a wonderful thing for the Giants and San Francisco baseball fans. They both will provide great numbers and great outings throughout the course of the 2010 season.
That being said, things will get tough after the 2010 season when Sanchez will hit his second year of arbitration. If he ends up having a better year than Cain in 2010, the Giants will be hard-pressed to give him a "Cain-esque" contract by Sanchez's management team.
And, with re-signing Tim Lincecum, Pablo Sandoval and Buster Posey to long-term deals a priority down the road, it will be interesting to see if managing partner Bill Neukom will be open to shelling out that kind of cash to the 27-year-old left-hander from Puerto Rico.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
"Giants" Enemy Lines: A Look at the NL West's One-Two Starting Pitchers
This is a series of posts leading up to the season preview which will be posted sometime next week. This post will look at the number one and number two starters for each team in the NL West (other than the Giants, since these posts will concentrate more on what the Giants will be facing in 2010 in various categories).
One thing to note about these posts is that I'm not looking specifically at the number one or number two pitchers in the rotation according to MLB.com depth charts. Rather, what I am looking at (and more concerned about as a Giants fan) are the two best pitchers on each NL West squad. For example, if you used the Giants as an example, the starting rotation may look like this: Tim Lincecum (no.1), Barry Zito (no.2), Matt Cain (no.3), Jonathan Sanchez (no.4), and Todd Wellemeyer/Kevin Pucetas (no.5).
(Note: I didn't put Madison Bumgarner in the fifth spot because he got optioned today. However, I do feel Bumgarner will be the fifth starter at some point this year, since I don't trust that Wellemeyer or Pucetas will be as good in the regular season as they have been in Spring Training.)
Now, would everyone consider Barry Zito the second-best pitcher on the Giants roster? Of course not. Thus, you have to use the same reasoning with the no.1 and no.2 starters on the other NL West squads. Is Chris Young a possible Opening Day starter? Could be. Is he the team's best pitcher? I would argue against that (he's probably the third, maybe even fourth best pitcher on the Padres at this moment in my opinion).
So, let's take a look around the NL West and the team's top of the rotation pitchers.
Arizona Diamondbacks:
Dan Haren and Edwin Jackson
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Haren
Haren's stats against the Giants in 2009: three games, 0-2 W-L, 3.79 ERA, 1.158 WHIP, 9.0 K/9, 9.50 K/BB.
Sure, Haren went 0-2 (with one no-decision) against the Giants in 2009. However, if it were not for lackluster offense on the Diamondbacks' end (or great pitching by the Giants starters...you can choose which one) then Haren could have easily went 3-0 against San Francisco last season.
While he finished a distant fourth for the NL Cy Young behind Cardinals Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter, and repeat winner Tim Lincecum (collective yeah! by Giants nation), Haren for the most part was in the running in the race until the last couple of months. Haren posted ERA numbers of 4.95 and 4.79 in August and September/October (he didn't post an ERA higher than 3.50 prior to August), along with WHIP numbers of 1.23 and 1.31 (he didn't have a WHIP higher than 1.06 prior to August).
Now, those numbers aren't terrible. They didn't get him the Cy Young, but they shouldn't deter Giants fans from believing Haren is anything less than a Big-Time Major League ace.
Haren has a lot to offer as a pitcher. In his tenure in Arizona, Haren has shown unbelievable control and command, as evidenced by his K/BB ratios. In 2008 with the Diamondbacks, he posted a K/BB ratio of 5.15. In 2009, he increased that number to 5.87. (To put it in perspective, the league average K/BB ratio for pitchers is around two).
How does Haren gets guys out? He has a solid, four-pitch repertoire, with all of his pitches having positive value in 2009 according to Fangraphs. Last season, Haren's money pitch was his cutter, as the pitch was worth 17.8 runs above average (e.g. he saved the Diamondbacks 17.8 runs last year with this pitch, according to Fangraphs). His fastball and split also proved to be effective as well, evidenced by his 9.3 and 9.0 runs above average ratios on these pitches.
The crazy thing about Haren is that he doesn't have incredible stuff. His fastball only averaged 90.6 MPH and it only topped out at 95 MPH on a couple of occasions last season. That being said, he mixes up his pitches well (probably due to the fact that he is very effective with all four of them). He only threw his fastball 45.7 percent of the time (the league average is 53.0 percent) and threw his cutter 23.3 percent of the time, his curve ball 18 percent of the time and his split finger 13 percent of the time. That kind of confidence in his secondary pitches show that Haren is not a one-trick pony, and is a tough guy to hit against, mainly because he can beat you in a variety of ways.
Haren may not have one the Cy Young last season. However, if he continues to stay in form like he did in 2008 and 2009, and his hitting comes around, it would not be surprising to see Haren snatch the award away from Lincecum in 2010.
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Jackson
Numbers in Detroit in 2009: 13-9 W-L, 3.62 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, 6.77 K/9, 2.30 K/BB.
Why did I list Jackson over Brandon Webb? Mainly because Webb probably won't return until late-April, and I am curious to see if Webb will be his old self when he returns to pitching after missing most of 2009 due to injury. So, I'm going with Jackson, who is expected to be ready to go once the 2010 season starts for the Diamondbacks.
However, that should not make Giants fans overlook Jackson.
Jackson, an All-Star in 2009 with the Tigers, has tremendous potential and finally delivered after years of hype when he was in the Dodgers' organization. Jackson has tremendous stuff and velocity (he averaged 94.5 MPH on his fastball), and last season he made great strides by cutting down his walk rate (to 2.94, the lowest walk rate of his career). Add that with increases in his strikeout rate and K/BB ratio (6.77 and 2.30 respectively) from 2008, and Jackson proved that he has all the makings of a potential top-of-the-rotation guy.
Is Jackson a bonafide ace at this moment? Unfortunately, now. Despite solid numbers in Detroit, his FIP (4.28) was less than flattering, and he benefited from a generously low BABIP (.281, the lowest number in that category since his rookie year in 2003 where he only pitched four games). It is unlikely that he'll post numbers that low again, even if he is making a transition from the American to the National League.
That being said, the Giants and Giants fans should not sleep on Jackson, even if Webb comes back to Arizona's rotation healthy. He could be to the Diamondbacks rotation what Matt Cain is to the Giants' (thus, explaining why I wrote that piece comparing Jackson and Cain a while ago).
Scare factor: 8.5 (potentially 9 if Webb's healthy) out of 10. (Jackson could be boom or bust, but Haren is the real deal and provides plenty of scare and worry to Giants fans. Also, if Webb comes back healthy and in old-form, then this rotation just got a whole lot scarier.)
Colorado Rockies
Ubaldo Jimenez and Jorge De La Rosa
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Jimenez
Jimenez's stats against the Giants in 2009: 5 games, 2-3 W-L, 3.98 ERA, 1.232 WHIP, 8.5 K/9, 3.00 K/BB.
Jimenez is the ace for the Rockies staff. Maybe ten years ago that was Mike Hampton and that didn't mean much considering it was home run derby every game played at Coors Field back then. Now though, being the ace of the Rockies is not a dubious honor. In fact, it actually means something nowadays considering the Rockies are a serious contender in the National League and the favorite to win the NL West in my book. (Or are they? Sorry don't want to spoil my NL West season preview.)
Jimenez is no Hampton. Jimenez is no Jamey Wright. Jimenez is the real deal with serious stuff, and last year he showed some serious success. (I like to say serious, don't I?)
In 2009, Jimenez went 15-12, not a great record, but his other numbers are much more impressive. His ERA was 3.47 and his FIP (fielding independent pitching on an ERA scale) was 3.36. Furthermore, he posted a strikeout rate of 8.17 (the highest of his Major League career) and a K/BB ratio of 2.33. His WHIP was also the league average (which is 1.39) at 1.23 and his BABIP wasn't just a little over 10 points under the league average at .290 (so he wasn't extraordinarily lucky by any measure in comparison to Jackson from Arizona).
What makes Jimenez so dangerous? His ability to throw the high heat.
The 26-year-old right hander throws gas, plain and simple, no questions asked. His fastball averaged 96.1 MPH last year and it actually touched the 100 MPH range according to Pitch F/X velocity charts on Fangraphs.
Yet the fastball isn't the only pitch in the Rockies ace's repertoire. Last season, Jimenez showed a solid ability to mix up his pitches as evidenced by him throwing his slider 17.8 percent of the time and his change 11.5 percent of the time. The secondary pitches also packed punch. His slider had a value of 15 runs above average and his changeup had a value of 9.6 runs above average (his fastball had a value of 11.4 runs above average in comparison).
Jimenez may not be a big name in comparison Haren from Arizona, but make no mistakes about it. Jimenez could be a serious dark horse to challenge for the Cy Young should he continue to improve like he did in 2009.
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Jorge De La Rosa
De La Rosa's stats against the Giants in 2009: 3 stars, 3-0 W-L, 3.38 ERA, 0.984 WHIP, 8.9 K/9, 7.00 K/BB.
Here is the equation that could summarize the Giants against De La Rosa last year:
De La Rosa + Giants offense = Rockies win.
Ergo, visa vi, concordingly...De La Rosa owned the Giants hitters in 2009.
I watched every start De La Rosa had against San Francisco last year, and there was no doubt in my mind how good the guy was. Basically, he is Jonathan Sanchez, only if Sanchez had better control and more velocity on the fastball (and had a better mental makeup than Sanchez...and had more wins...and had more run support...I could go on forever really). With a fastball that averages 93.3 MPH, De La Rosa has some solid gas behind his pitches. Additionally, he can mix it up well. In 2009, he threw his slider 15.3 percent of the time and changeup 17.0 percent of the time. His slider and chanegup proved to be his most effective pitches, as he had a value of 3.4 runs above average and 8.1 runs above average on them, respectively.
The most intriguing aspect of De La Rosa's pitching though is his ability to make bats miss. Last year, hitters only made contact against De La Rosa 74.8 percent of the time. To put things in perspective, the league average contact rate is 80.5 percent and Jimenez, the ace of the Rockies, had a contact rate of 77.3 percent.
What does that show? De La Rosa has the makings of a real strikeout artist (which already somewhat rings true as evidenced by his 9.39 strikeout rate). If De La Rosa can lower his walk (4.04 BB/9) and WHIP numbers (1.38) from 2009, don't be surprised to see De La Rosa on the NL All-Star roster next July.
Scare factor: 9 out of 10 (They play in Coors Field unfortunately, but considering they are strikeout pitchers, they have the ability to succeed where pitchers like Hampton, Shawn Estes and Darryl Kile failed. If they continue to improve, and can get some improvement from their defense behind them, Jimenez and De La Rosa could be the answer to the Giants' Lincecum-Cain one-two punch.)
Los Angeles Dodgers
Chad Billingsley and Clayton Kershaw
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Billingsley
Billingsley's stats against the Giants in 2009: 5 games (4 starts) , 1-2 W-L, 3.67 ERA, 1.556 WHIP, 10.0 K/9, 3.33 K/BB.
Billingsley is a very interesting pitcher. There is no doubt the guy has the ability to strike hitters out. Last year he posted a 8.21 strikeout rate, and that was his lowest K/9 rate since his rookie season in 2006 (where it was 5.90). Additionally, Billingsley can also make hitters miss (75.9 contact rate in 2009) and his FIP (3.82 in 2009) actually suggests that he may not have been as bad a pitcher as he looked to be back in July and September/October where he was posting ERA numbers of 7.52 and 5.16, respectively and and WHIP numbers of 1.52 and 1.48, respectively.
So what's Billingsley's problem? Well, he has trouble finding the strike zone.
Last year, his walk rate was high at 3.94 and he only posted a K/BB ratio of 2.03. He was especially bad against the Giants: despite having a K/9 rate of 10, he only posted a 3.33 K/BB ratio.
Billingsley's control is very puzzling, mainly because he doesn't throw incredibly hard (his fastball average 91.8 MPH last year) and he mixes up his pitches well. He throws his cutter 23.2 percent of the time and his curve 23.1 percent of the time, thus showing that he has confidence in a few pitches.
However, in tight situations, Billingsley struggled last year. In high leverage situations, he posted a K/BB ratio of 0.93 and a FIP of 5.26. Those numbers look very bad, especially when you compare them to battery mate Kershaw, who posted a K/BB ratio of 2.33 and a FIP of 3.74 in high leverage situations.
There is no doubt Billingsley has the tools to be a great pitcher. He has three pitches he can throw with consistency, he induces a good amount of groundballs (1.25 GB/FB rate last year, 1.58 in 2008), and he can make hitters miss, as evidenced by his strikeout rates and contact rates.
That being said, unless Billingsley performs better in tougher situations, and solves his walk issues, Billingsley will never be the ace he was hyped up to be when he was drafted by Dodgers in the first round in 2003.
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Kershaw
Kershaw's stats against the Giants in 2009: 1 start, 7 IP, 1 H, 1 R, 1 ER, 1 BB, 13 K, No-Decision.
You can thank the Dodgers bullpen for blowing Kershaw's wonderful performance against the Giants. Yet, bad start and all, you can say one thing about Kershaw:
This...kid...can...pitch.
Seriously, he just turned 22, and he may be the Dodgers best pitcher on staff come Opening Day. Now, I know you can be pessimistic (and I like to be with the Dodgers) and say the Dodgers starting rotation is pretty mediocre, but I'll take the high road and say that Kershaw is a gem in the rough that get overshadowed by the big name starters in the NL West such as Lincecum, Haren, Cain and even Jimenez and De La Rosa.
However, you can't ignore Kershaw, despite his mediocre record (8-8) in 2009.
For starters, Kershaw has an extraordinary ability to strike guys out. In 2009, he posted a strikeout rate of 9.74 and hitters only made contact against Kershaw 76.7 percent of the time. What the secret to his success? He has got some incredibly stuff behind his pitches, especially his fastball. His fastball averaged 93.9 MPH last year, but it was common to see his fastball hover around the 95-6 MPH range. Furthermore, he had tremendous value behind his fastball as well (illustrated by the pitch having a value of 30.0 runs above average).
Granted, people expecting Kershaw to be the Dodgers answer to Lincecum have to keep things in perspective. For starters, he's still young, and despite solid ERA numbers last year (2.79) as well as FIP numbers (3.08), his K/BB numbers leave a little to be desired (2.03, hurt by a 4.79 walk rate in 2009). In addition, Kershaw is a pretty two-dimensional pitcher. He threw his fastball 71.7 percent of the time and the only pitch he threw more than 10 percent of the time was his curve ball (17.1 percent of the time).
If Kershaw wants to be an ace in this league, he's going to have to develop a third pitch, or else Major League hitters will catch up on him pretty quickly.
Scare factor: 7 out of 10 (Billingsley and Kershaw are two young, scary, promising pitchers, but they don't impress in comparison to what Colorado and Arizona have to offer. If Kershaw can develop an effective third pitch, and if Billingsley can get his walk issues under control, this duo could surprise, especially considering the offensive lineup they are pitching with.)
San Diego Padres
Kevin Correia and Jon Garland
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Correia
Correia's stats against the Giants in 2009: 4 games, 1-1 W-L, 3.75 ERA, 1.292 WHIP, 5.6 K/9, 5.00 K/BB.
The former Giant made his old team pay in 2009. In four games, Correia went 1-1 and posted a solid 3.75 ERA and 1.292 WHIP.
However, it was just the Giants Correia succeeded against. He also managed to have a solid year overall, as shown by his 3.91 ERA, 3.81 FIP, 1.30 WHIP, and 2.22 K/BB ratio (helped by a 6.45 strikeout rate).
Now, Correia doesn't have intimidating stuff. His fastball only average 91.1 MPH and it topped out over 95 MPH just once in 2009 according to his velocity graphs. Yet Correia succeeded with Padres in 2009 because a.) he didn't walk too many guys (his walk rate was 2.91) and b.) he improved in terms of inducing groundballs.
In regard to the former, the walk numbers were a surprise. The lowest walk rate numbers Correia posted prior to 2009 was in 2006 with the Giants at 2.54. That being said, those walk numbers came as a reliever and he pitched almost 129 more innings in 2009 than in 2006, so his 2009 walk rate numbers are a lot more impressive than his 2006 ones.
As for the latter point, you could attribute Correia's success in inducing more groundballs and allowing less line drives (his groundball rate increased from 38.2 percent in 2008 to 44.8 in 2009, and his line drive rate fell from 24.9 percent in 2008 to 19.2 percent in 2009) to his change in pitch variety. In his first year as a starting pitcher at the Major League level, Correia primarily threw three pitches: a fastball (which he threw 60 percent of the time), slider (which he threw 27.2 percent of the time), and changeup (which he threw 9.2 percent of the time).
In his second year as a starting pitcher with the Padres, Correia threw his fastball less (only 51.7 percent of the time) and his secondary pitches more. He threw his slider 30.2 percent of the time, his curve ball and 10.5 percent of the time, and his changeup 5.8 percent of the time. Thus, Correia found success by having a solid pitch variety something he didn't do as a reliever and spot starter back in San Francisco.
Can Correia repeat his 2009 success in 2010? It's tough to tell because his stuff isn't awesome. However, if he can continue to improve his GB/FB rates, it isn't out of the question to think that Correia could be an underrated ace in the NL West.
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Jon Garland
Garland's stats against the Giants in 2009: 2 games, 1-0 W-L, 2.35 ERA, 1.239 WHIP, 2.9 K/9, 2.50 K/BB.
Garland isn't an intimidating pitcher by any means. He is up there in age (he's 30), and he isn't the kind of pitcher known for striking guys out (his strikeout rate has topped five three times: 5.07 in 2003, 5.23 in 2002, and 5.43 in 2000, all with the White Sox). Yet Garland finds moderate success as a Major League pitcher because he doesn't walk guys. Since 2005, his walk rate hasn't been over 2.70.
Despite solid walk rates, it really hasn't transitioned to success in his other statistical categories. His FIP wasn't impressive (4.48) and neither was his WHIP (1.40). Garland has a tendency to induce groundballs as a pitcher, but even then, it's hit or miss at-times. While he induced good groundball numbers in 2008 and 2009 (1.79 and 1.31, respectively), they were less than stellar in 2006 and 2007 (1.12 and 1.04, respectively).
Garland can mix it up with his pitches, which is necessary considering his mediocre velocity (he averaged 89.7 MPH on his fastball last year). However, while he has up to six different pitches, he only throws two of them with any confidence (only his cutter and change were thrown over 10 percent of the time).
There is not a lot to like about Garland. That being said, he is a serviceable and dependable pitcher that will eat innings (he has thrown 190-plus innings since 2002) and put up decent, though not spectacular numbers. Considering a lot of pitchers on the Padres have suffered from inconsistency (Chris Young and Clayton Richard come to mind), a guy like Garland isn't bad to have in this rotation.
Scare factor: 4.5 out of 10 (Correia is a good pitcher on this Padres team, but he'd be a third or fourth starter on any other NL West squad. Garland is good, but he won't strike fear into anybody. Richard has some potential, but it hasn't been proven consistently. For now, this Padres rotation is pretty mediocre.)
One thing to note about these posts is that I'm not looking specifically at the number one or number two pitchers in the rotation according to MLB.com depth charts. Rather, what I am looking at (and more concerned about as a Giants fan) are the two best pitchers on each NL West squad. For example, if you used the Giants as an example, the starting rotation may look like this: Tim Lincecum (no.1), Barry Zito (no.2), Matt Cain (no.3), Jonathan Sanchez (no.4), and Todd Wellemeyer/Kevin Pucetas (no.5).
(Note: I didn't put Madison Bumgarner in the fifth spot because he got optioned today. However, I do feel Bumgarner will be the fifth starter at some point this year, since I don't trust that Wellemeyer or Pucetas will be as good in the regular season as they have been in Spring Training.)
Now, would everyone consider Barry Zito the second-best pitcher on the Giants roster? Of course not. Thus, you have to use the same reasoning with the no.1 and no.2 starters on the other NL West squads. Is Chris Young a possible Opening Day starter? Could be. Is he the team's best pitcher? I would argue against that (he's probably the third, maybe even fourth best pitcher on the Padres at this moment in my opinion).
So, let's take a look around the NL West and the team's top of the rotation pitchers.
Arizona Diamondbacks:
Dan Haren and Edwin Jackson
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Haren
Haren's stats against the Giants in 2009: three games, 0-2 W-L, 3.79 ERA, 1.158 WHIP, 9.0 K/9, 9.50 K/BB.
Sure, Haren went 0-2 (with one no-decision) against the Giants in 2009. However, if it were not for lackluster offense on the Diamondbacks' end (or great pitching by the Giants starters...you can choose which one) then Haren could have easily went 3-0 against San Francisco last season.
While he finished a distant fourth for the NL Cy Young behind Cardinals Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter, and repeat winner Tim Lincecum (collective yeah! by Giants nation), Haren for the most part was in the running in the race until the last couple of months. Haren posted ERA numbers of 4.95 and 4.79 in August and September/October (he didn't post an ERA higher than 3.50 prior to August), along with WHIP numbers of 1.23 and 1.31 (he didn't have a WHIP higher than 1.06 prior to August).
Now, those numbers aren't terrible. They didn't get him the Cy Young, but they shouldn't deter Giants fans from believing Haren is anything less than a Big-Time Major League ace.
Haren has a lot to offer as a pitcher. In his tenure in Arizona, Haren has shown unbelievable control and command, as evidenced by his K/BB ratios. In 2008 with the Diamondbacks, he posted a K/BB ratio of 5.15. In 2009, he increased that number to 5.87. (To put it in perspective, the league average K/BB ratio for pitchers is around two).
How does Haren gets guys out? He has a solid, four-pitch repertoire, with all of his pitches having positive value in 2009 according to Fangraphs. Last season, Haren's money pitch was his cutter, as the pitch was worth 17.8 runs above average (e.g. he saved the Diamondbacks 17.8 runs last year with this pitch, according to Fangraphs). His fastball and split also proved to be effective as well, evidenced by his 9.3 and 9.0 runs above average ratios on these pitches.
The crazy thing about Haren is that he doesn't have incredible stuff. His fastball only averaged 90.6 MPH and it only topped out at 95 MPH on a couple of occasions last season. That being said, he mixes up his pitches well (probably due to the fact that he is very effective with all four of them). He only threw his fastball 45.7 percent of the time (the league average is 53.0 percent) and threw his cutter 23.3 percent of the time, his curve ball 18 percent of the time and his split finger 13 percent of the time. That kind of confidence in his secondary pitches show that Haren is not a one-trick pony, and is a tough guy to hit against, mainly because he can beat you in a variety of ways.
Haren may not have one the Cy Young last season. However, if he continues to stay in form like he did in 2008 and 2009, and his hitting comes around, it would not be surprising to see Haren snatch the award away from Lincecum in 2010.
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Jackson
Numbers in Detroit in 2009: 13-9 W-L, 3.62 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, 6.77 K/9, 2.30 K/BB.
Why did I list Jackson over Brandon Webb? Mainly because Webb probably won't return until late-April, and I am curious to see if Webb will be his old self when he returns to pitching after missing most of 2009 due to injury. So, I'm going with Jackson, who is expected to be ready to go once the 2010 season starts for the Diamondbacks.
However, that should not make Giants fans overlook Jackson.
Jackson, an All-Star in 2009 with the Tigers, has tremendous potential and finally delivered after years of hype when he was in the Dodgers' organization. Jackson has tremendous stuff and velocity (he averaged 94.5 MPH on his fastball), and last season he made great strides by cutting down his walk rate (to 2.94, the lowest walk rate of his career). Add that with increases in his strikeout rate and K/BB ratio (6.77 and 2.30 respectively) from 2008, and Jackson proved that he has all the makings of a potential top-of-the-rotation guy.
Is Jackson a bonafide ace at this moment? Unfortunately, now. Despite solid numbers in Detroit, his FIP (4.28) was less than flattering, and he benefited from a generously low BABIP (.281, the lowest number in that category since his rookie year in 2003 where he only pitched four games). It is unlikely that he'll post numbers that low again, even if he is making a transition from the American to the National League.
That being said, the Giants and Giants fans should not sleep on Jackson, even if Webb comes back to Arizona's rotation healthy. He could be to the Diamondbacks rotation what Matt Cain is to the Giants' (thus, explaining why I wrote that piece comparing Jackson and Cain a while ago).
Scare factor: 8.5 (potentially 9 if Webb's healthy) out of 10. (Jackson could be boom or bust, but Haren is the real deal and provides plenty of scare and worry to Giants fans. Also, if Webb comes back healthy and in old-form, then this rotation just got a whole lot scarier.)
Colorado Rockies
Ubaldo Jimenez and Jorge De La Rosa
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Jimenez
Jimenez's stats against the Giants in 2009: 5 games, 2-3 W-L, 3.98 ERA, 1.232 WHIP, 8.5 K/9, 3.00 K/BB.
Jimenez is the ace for the Rockies staff. Maybe ten years ago that was Mike Hampton and that didn't mean much considering it was home run derby every game played at Coors Field back then. Now though, being the ace of the Rockies is not a dubious honor. In fact, it actually means something nowadays considering the Rockies are a serious contender in the National League and the favorite to win the NL West in my book. (Or are they? Sorry don't want to spoil my NL West season preview.)
Jimenez is no Hampton. Jimenez is no Jamey Wright. Jimenez is the real deal with serious stuff, and last year he showed some serious success. (I like to say serious, don't I?)
In 2009, Jimenez went 15-12, not a great record, but his other numbers are much more impressive. His ERA was 3.47 and his FIP (fielding independent pitching on an ERA scale) was 3.36. Furthermore, he posted a strikeout rate of 8.17 (the highest of his Major League career) and a K/BB ratio of 2.33. His WHIP was also the league average (which is 1.39) at 1.23 and his BABIP wasn't just a little over 10 points under the league average at .290 (so he wasn't extraordinarily lucky by any measure in comparison to Jackson from Arizona).
What makes Jimenez so dangerous? His ability to throw the high heat.
The 26-year-old right hander throws gas, plain and simple, no questions asked. His fastball averaged 96.1 MPH last year and it actually touched the 100 MPH range according to Pitch F/X velocity charts on Fangraphs.
Yet the fastball isn't the only pitch in the Rockies ace's repertoire. Last season, Jimenez showed a solid ability to mix up his pitches as evidenced by him throwing his slider 17.8 percent of the time and his change 11.5 percent of the time. The secondary pitches also packed punch. His slider had a value of 15 runs above average and his changeup had a value of 9.6 runs above average (his fastball had a value of 11.4 runs above average in comparison).
Jimenez may not be a big name in comparison Haren from Arizona, but make no mistakes about it. Jimenez could be a serious dark horse to challenge for the Cy Young should he continue to improve like he did in 2009.
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Jorge De La Rosa
De La Rosa's stats against the Giants in 2009: 3 stars, 3-0 W-L, 3.38 ERA, 0.984 WHIP, 8.9 K/9, 7.00 K/BB.
Here is the equation that could summarize the Giants against De La Rosa last year:
De La Rosa + Giants offense = Rockies win.
Ergo, visa vi, concordingly...De La Rosa owned the Giants hitters in 2009.
I watched every start De La Rosa had against San Francisco last year, and there was no doubt in my mind how good the guy was. Basically, he is Jonathan Sanchez, only if Sanchez had better control and more velocity on the fastball (and had a better mental makeup than Sanchez...and had more wins...and had more run support...I could go on forever really). With a fastball that averages 93.3 MPH, De La Rosa has some solid gas behind his pitches. Additionally, he can mix it up well. In 2009, he threw his slider 15.3 percent of the time and changeup 17.0 percent of the time. His slider and chanegup proved to be his most effective pitches, as he had a value of 3.4 runs above average and 8.1 runs above average on them, respectively.
The most intriguing aspect of De La Rosa's pitching though is his ability to make bats miss. Last year, hitters only made contact against De La Rosa 74.8 percent of the time. To put things in perspective, the league average contact rate is 80.5 percent and Jimenez, the ace of the Rockies, had a contact rate of 77.3 percent.
What does that show? De La Rosa has the makings of a real strikeout artist (which already somewhat rings true as evidenced by his 9.39 strikeout rate). If De La Rosa can lower his walk (4.04 BB/9) and WHIP numbers (1.38) from 2009, don't be surprised to see De La Rosa on the NL All-Star roster next July.
Scare factor: 9 out of 10 (They play in Coors Field unfortunately, but considering they are strikeout pitchers, they have the ability to succeed where pitchers like Hampton, Shawn Estes and Darryl Kile failed. If they continue to improve, and can get some improvement from their defense behind them, Jimenez and De La Rosa could be the answer to the Giants' Lincecum-Cain one-two punch.)
Los Angeles Dodgers
Chad Billingsley and Clayton Kershaw
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Billingsley
Billingsley's stats against the Giants in 2009: 5 games (4 starts) , 1-2 W-L, 3.67 ERA, 1.556 WHIP, 10.0 K/9, 3.33 K/BB.
Billingsley is a very interesting pitcher. There is no doubt the guy has the ability to strike hitters out. Last year he posted a 8.21 strikeout rate, and that was his lowest K/9 rate since his rookie season in 2006 (where it was 5.90). Additionally, Billingsley can also make hitters miss (75.9 contact rate in 2009) and his FIP (3.82 in 2009) actually suggests that he may not have been as bad a pitcher as he looked to be back in July and September/October where he was posting ERA numbers of 7.52 and 5.16, respectively and and WHIP numbers of 1.52 and 1.48, respectively.
So what's Billingsley's problem? Well, he has trouble finding the strike zone.
Last year, his walk rate was high at 3.94 and he only posted a K/BB ratio of 2.03. He was especially bad against the Giants: despite having a K/9 rate of 10, he only posted a 3.33 K/BB ratio.
Billingsley's control is very puzzling, mainly because he doesn't throw incredibly hard (his fastball average 91.8 MPH last year) and he mixes up his pitches well. He throws his cutter 23.2 percent of the time and his curve 23.1 percent of the time, thus showing that he has confidence in a few pitches.
However, in tight situations, Billingsley struggled last year. In high leverage situations, he posted a K/BB ratio of 0.93 and a FIP of 5.26. Those numbers look very bad, especially when you compare them to battery mate Kershaw, who posted a K/BB ratio of 2.33 and a FIP of 3.74 in high leverage situations.
There is no doubt Billingsley has the tools to be a great pitcher. He has three pitches he can throw with consistency, he induces a good amount of groundballs (1.25 GB/FB rate last year, 1.58 in 2008), and he can make hitters miss, as evidenced by his strikeout rates and contact rates.
That being said, unless Billingsley performs better in tougher situations, and solves his walk issues, Billingsley will never be the ace he was hyped up to be when he was drafted by Dodgers in the first round in 2003.
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Kershaw
Kershaw's stats against the Giants in 2009: 1 start, 7 IP, 1 H, 1 R, 1 ER, 1 BB, 13 K, No-Decision.
You can thank the Dodgers bullpen for blowing Kershaw's wonderful performance against the Giants. Yet, bad start and all, you can say one thing about Kershaw:
This...kid...can...pitch.
Seriously, he just turned 22, and he may be the Dodgers best pitcher on staff come Opening Day. Now, I know you can be pessimistic (and I like to be with the Dodgers) and say the Dodgers starting rotation is pretty mediocre, but I'll take the high road and say that Kershaw is a gem in the rough that get overshadowed by the big name starters in the NL West such as Lincecum, Haren, Cain and even Jimenez and De La Rosa.
However, you can't ignore Kershaw, despite his mediocre record (8-8) in 2009.
For starters, Kershaw has an extraordinary ability to strike guys out. In 2009, he posted a strikeout rate of 9.74 and hitters only made contact against Kershaw 76.7 percent of the time. What the secret to his success? He has got some incredibly stuff behind his pitches, especially his fastball. His fastball averaged 93.9 MPH last year, but it was common to see his fastball hover around the 95-6 MPH range. Furthermore, he had tremendous value behind his fastball as well (illustrated by the pitch having a value of 30.0 runs above average).
Granted, people expecting Kershaw to be the Dodgers answer to Lincecum have to keep things in perspective. For starters, he's still young, and despite solid ERA numbers last year (2.79) as well as FIP numbers (3.08), his K/BB numbers leave a little to be desired (2.03, hurt by a 4.79 walk rate in 2009). In addition, Kershaw is a pretty two-dimensional pitcher. He threw his fastball 71.7 percent of the time and the only pitch he threw more than 10 percent of the time was his curve ball (17.1 percent of the time).
If Kershaw wants to be an ace in this league, he's going to have to develop a third pitch, or else Major League hitters will catch up on him pretty quickly.
Scare factor: 7 out of 10 (Billingsley and Kershaw are two young, scary, promising pitchers, but they don't impress in comparison to what Colorado and Arizona have to offer. If Kershaw can develop an effective third pitch, and if Billingsley can get his walk issues under control, this duo could surprise, especially considering the offensive lineup they are pitching with.)
San Diego Padres
Kevin Correia and Jon Garland
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Correia
Correia's stats against the Giants in 2009: 4 games, 1-1 W-L, 3.75 ERA, 1.292 WHIP, 5.6 K/9, 5.00 K/BB.
The former Giant made his old team pay in 2009. In four games, Correia went 1-1 and posted a solid 3.75 ERA and 1.292 WHIP.
However, it was just the Giants Correia succeeded against. He also managed to have a solid year overall, as shown by his 3.91 ERA, 3.81 FIP, 1.30 WHIP, and 2.22 K/BB ratio (helped by a 6.45 strikeout rate).
Now, Correia doesn't have intimidating stuff. His fastball only average 91.1 MPH and it topped out over 95 MPH just once in 2009 according to his velocity graphs. Yet Correia succeeded with Padres in 2009 because a.) he didn't walk too many guys (his walk rate was 2.91) and b.) he improved in terms of inducing groundballs.
In regard to the former, the walk numbers were a surprise. The lowest walk rate numbers Correia posted prior to 2009 was in 2006 with the Giants at 2.54. That being said, those walk numbers came as a reliever and he pitched almost 129 more innings in 2009 than in 2006, so his 2009 walk rate numbers are a lot more impressive than his 2006 ones.
As for the latter point, you could attribute Correia's success in inducing more groundballs and allowing less line drives (his groundball rate increased from 38.2 percent in 2008 to 44.8 in 2009, and his line drive rate fell from 24.9 percent in 2008 to 19.2 percent in 2009) to his change in pitch variety. In his first year as a starting pitcher at the Major League level, Correia primarily threw three pitches: a fastball (which he threw 60 percent of the time), slider (which he threw 27.2 percent of the time), and changeup (which he threw 9.2 percent of the time).
In his second year as a starting pitcher with the Padres, Correia threw his fastball less (only 51.7 percent of the time) and his secondary pitches more. He threw his slider 30.2 percent of the time, his curve ball and 10.5 percent of the time, and his changeup 5.8 percent of the time. Thus, Correia found success by having a solid pitch variety something he didn't do as a reliever and spot starter back in San Francisco.
Can Correia repeat his 2009 success in 2010? It's tough to tell because his stuff isn't awesome. However, if he can continue to improve his GB/FB rates, it isn't out of the question to think that Correia could be an underrated ace in the NL West.
Why Giants Fans Should Fear Jon Garland
Garland's stats against the Giants in 2009: 2 games, 1-0 W-L, 2.35 ERA, 1.239 WHIP, 2.9 K/9, 2.50 K/BB.
Garland isn't an intimidating pitcher by any means. He is up there in age (he's 30), and he isn't the kind of pitcher known for striking guys out (his strikeout rate has topped five three times: 5.07 in 2003, 5.23 in 2002, and 5.43 in 2000, all with the White Sox). Yet Garland finds moderate success as a Major League pitcher because he doesn't walk guys. Since 2005, his walk rate hasn't been over 2.70.
Despite solid walk rates, it really hasn't transitioned to success in his other statistical categories. His FIP wasn't impressive (4.48) and neither was his WHIP (1.40). Garland has a tendency to induce groundballs as a pitcher, but even then, it's hit or miss at-times. While he induced good groundball numbers in 2008 and 2009 (1.79 and 1.31, respectively), they were less than stellar in 2006 and 2007 (1.12 and 1.04, respectively).
Garland can mix it up with his pitches, which is necessary considering his mediocre velocity (he averaged 89.7 MPH on his fastball last year). However, while he has up to six different pitches, he only throws two of them with any confidence (only his cutter and change were thrown over 10 percent of the time).
There is not a lot to like about Garland. That being said, he is a serviceable and dependable pitcher that will eat innings (he has thrown 190-plus innings since 2002) and put up decent, though not spectacular numbers. Considering a lot of pitchers on the Padres have suffered from inconsistency (Chris Young and Clayton Richard come to mind), a guy like Garland isn't bad to have in this rotation.
Scare factor: 4.5 out of 10 (Correia is a good pitcher on this Padres team, but he'd be a third or fourth starter on any other NL West squad. Garland is good, but he won't strike fear into anybody. Richard has some potential, but it hasn't been proven consistently. For now, this Padres rotation is pretty mediocre.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
