Showing posts with label Sabermetrics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sabermetrics. Show all posts

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Stats vs. Scouts: Comparing Conor Gillaspie and Chris Dominguez

As I lead up to the OTF Top-30, I am going to do a brief series where I look at two players who share the same position in the Giants system. The key part of this analysis is that they are contrasting players in the way scouts and stat-guys look at them. One guy will be more valuable according to scouting reports, while the other player may not be as highly heralded by scouts, but will have better numbers than the player he is being compared to.

The first two players that popped into my mind were a pair of third basemen: Conor Gillaspie and Chris Dominguez.

I hope to make this an on-going series, but with things a changing all the time, who knows how long this will go. Hopefully, I can get four or five comparisons for Giants fans and fellow writers to chew on before I start my rankings.


Why the Stats Guys like Gillaspie



Gillaspie was pretty heralded coming out of Wichita State in the 2008 Rule 4 draft. He was a first round supplemental pick who went in the Giants' slot at No. 37 and though he didn't hit for a ton of power for the Shockers, many analysts liked him as a "Bill Mueller-esque" player who could hit for high average and get on-base well despite missing that power tool set for a corner infielder.

Amazingly, Gillaspie was put on the 40-man roster in his first year of professional ball in 2008 and actually had a cup of coffee for the Giants where he had seven plate appearances at the Big League level. Gillaspie wasn't overly impressive in his short 18 game stint in Salem Keizer in 2008 (he posted a .338 wOBA with a .268/.350/.674 slash line), but he showed good contact skills and a solid eye at the plate in his professional debut, as he sported a 0.69 BB/K ratio with the Volcanoes. Many believed that due to his status as a prospect (he was a high draft pick out of college) and his plate patience and contact skills, Gillaspie would be fast tracked to the Major League level, perhaps seeing a longer callup in 2009 and competing for a job in 2010.

Unfortunately, some things hurt Gillaspie in 2009. For starters, Pablo Sandoval, formerly a catching prospect in the Giants system, came on with authority in 2009 at third base, pretty much serving as a road block for Gillaspie getting called up. Additionally, Gillaspie didn't set the world on fire in the hitter-friendly California League, as he posted a slash line of .286/.364/.750 in 530 plate appearances for San Jose, good for a a .341 wOBA. Gillaspie didn't show much power at all, as evidenced by only having 37 extra base hits (including only four home runs) and the reports on his defense weren't stellar at all. Dr. B of When the Giants Come to Town said this about Gillaspie in his scouting report for the 2010 prospect list, where he actually saw Gillaspie in person (he ranked Gillaspie no. 18 in his Top-50 in 2010).

"The most worrisome part of his game is on defense. He looks quite awkward at 3B and appears to struggle to make routine throws. The 3'rd time I saw him, he made several routine plays without incident and looked a bit more confident. He reportedly voluntarily went to Arizona Instructionals in the fall to work on his defense, so maybe it will come around."

Scouts have said many of the same things: that he doesn't have a great arm, that his range is nothing special, and that he just isn't a natural fielder or athlete. This makes Gillaspie's status as a prospect difficult to handle because it doesn't seem like he's the kind of player that the Giants brass could move around the field. He probably could play third and maybe first, but even if you're moving him to first, you're sacrificing a lot power for the position, and there are a lot better options to play at first before Gillaspie (Brandon Belt being the main one).

In Double-A in 2010, Gillaspie did bounce back a little from his disappointing Cal League campaign, holding his own in the pitcher-friendly confines of the Eastern League. Amazingly, he did show more power in Richmond than he did in San Jose, as his ISO went up from .100 in the CL to .132 in 540 plate appearances in the EL, but his slash line (.287/.335/.754) still remained underwhelming for a former first round pick (though he was a supplemental round pick to be fair).

Last year though, being mostly written off by most Giants Top Prospect lists, Gillaspie had a bit of a renaissance at the plate, as he really came on strong in the Pacific Coast League with the Grizzlies. He hit 11 home runs and posted a .157 ISO in 503 plate appearances, both Minor League career highs (that's not counting the .292 ISO he posted in the Arizona Fall league, but considering he only had 80 plate appearances and he was mostly facing rookies and second year guys, I don't take that sample very seriously). He finished his 2011 campaign with the Grizzlies with a slash line of .297/.389/.842 and his solid performance in Fresno earned him a callup to the Giants where he garnered 21 plate appearances (he hit .263 and had an inside the park home run; the best part of his callup was his ability to make contact and show a good eye at the plate, as he drew two walks and only struck out once).

I think why a lot of stat guys would be high on Gillaspie is due to his strong contact abilities, as evidenced by his consistently strong BB/K ratios in the minors. In his extended stints in San Jose, Richmond and Fresno, Gillaspie posted ratios of 0.81, 0.55 and 0.84, respectively, and he's never had a strikeout rate over 16.3 percent (his first year in pro ball in Salem Keizer). Coupled with a bit of a power renaissance in Richmond and especially Fresno, Gillaspie is a "stats" darling of sorts, as many envision him as poor man's Bill Mueller who could consistently be a .280-300 hitter and .340-380 OBP guy in the Majors if given ample playing time.

However, a lot of scouts simply just aren't all that into Gillaspie. He doesn't have a standout tool other than his ability to make contact. He doesn't hit for much power (though that has been getting more developed since his Cal League campaign), he has never hit for incredibly high average, and his defensive tools are rated average at best. With Sandoval beating him in upside in almost every imaginable tool category possible, Gillaspie just seems like a bench player to a lot of scouts, and even if he wasn't blocked Pablo, he maybe would be a utility infielder at best in their eyes. Other than the OBP and BB/K ratios, nothing really jumps out with Gillaspie to most scouts.

So where do I stand on Gillaspie? I love his contact skills and I think his ability to get on base will serve him well at the Major League level. It's not like he's hitting .240 with a .360 OBP and putting up egregious strikeout numbers. Furthermore, he's gotten better at the plate as he's moved up the system, so that has to count for something.

Yet there are a couple of problems with Gillaspie. First off, if you had to say what Gillaspie's plus tool was, it would be difficult to be say, and you could argue that he might not have any. It's obviously not his speed, power, defense or base-running, so the only possible plus tool he could have has a prospect is hitting for average. But that's the thing: though the wOBA and OBP stats are nice, Gillaspie has not really hit for high average at any stop in the minors, with the highest batting average he has posted being .297 (last year with the Grizzlies). Can you really say a guy has plus "hitting for average" tool if he's never hit for .300 at all from High-A to Triple-A? To me, that concerns me, because even the guy he's constantly compared to (Bill Mueller) hit for average in the minors (career batting average of .306 in the minors in comparison to Gillaspie's .288) and it's hard to imagine a guy who hasn't hit over .300 in the minors suddenly be able to do so in the Majors. I'm not saying it's impossible (you never know with how much BABIP fluctuates and the scarcity of batted ball rate information in the minors), just that it's very unlikely.

Another challenge for Gillaspie reaching the Majors may just be out of his hands, as Sandoval is simply just a mainstay at the position and you can't put Gillaspie (or even Sandoval for that measure) anywhere else due to his lack of athleticism and mediocre defense. At this point, Gillaspie's future with the Giants, despite his good numbers, may be as a utility infielder or trade fodder (though I could see him producing good value on a team that may give him an extended shot).


Why the Scouts like Dominguez



Dominguez is an older prospect of sorts. The highest level he has played at is Double-A, and he's already 25 years old, so the time span for Dominguez as a prospect is ticking away quickly (much like Gillaspie). Dominguez also was moved along slowly in the Giants system (he spent his first full professional season in Single-A, Augusta, which is not typical for most higher profile prospects out of college, as they usually start in San Jose), so that didn't do him any favors as well.

Nonetheless, despite the slow progression up the Giants minor league ladder, scouts have had some affinity with Dominguez for two reasons: his power and his arm. As a prospect, Dominguez has two plus tool sets which many scouts believe can transition to the Major League level. Additionally, with his size (six-foot, three inches, and 215 pounds), he has all the characteristics of a big league player, especially a corner infielder.

Dominguez burst on the scene in his debut season in 2009 after being drafted by the Giants in the third round. After signing quickly, he was able to play in 47 games in Salem Keizer and in 198 plate appearances he posted a slash line of .254/.298/.740 and a wOBA of .343 (he also had a wOBA of .415 in a stint in the Arizona Rookie League, but that was only a nine game, 40 plate appearance sample). While the averages and walk numbers (4.5 walk percentage, 0.16 BB/K ratio) were concerning, Dominguez displayed impressive power in the Northwest League, as he hit nine home runs and sported an ISO of .188.

Because he still had a lot to work on as a hitter after his Volcano campaign, the Giants brass opted to move him up to only Augusta rather than San Jose in 2010 in hope that he would develop more as a hitter. He spent the whole year with the Green Jackets in the Sally and did improve in many ways. His slash line in 608 plate appearances improved to .272/.326/.782 and his BB/K ratio and wOBA both rose to 0.26 and .351, respectively. While the improvements weren't dramatic, his numbers, especially his power ones (.184 ISO, .456 slugging and 21 home runs) did give some Giants fans some hope. However, his older age in the league did put some analysts back and prevent them from ranking him as a higher prospect, as Mike Newman remarked on a post he wrote for "Scouting the Sally."

"After watching him play, I referred back to a scouting report on Dominguez by Frankie Piliere back in 2008 to find little had changed in the two years since that report was written. Dominguez seemed like the same player he was as a junior in college which leaves me questioning his ability to adjust at a more advanced age than the average “Sally” prospect...

...At 19, I wouldn’t be concerned about his progress or lack thereof yet. But at 24, Dominguez needs to mash his way through High-A and finish the season doing the like in Double-A for me to really take him seriously as a prospect. Unfortunately for Dominguez, I suspect he will hit a buzzsaw in Bridgeport against pitchers who can spin a breaking pitch with any consistency whatsoever, dooming him to organizational status."

Last year, the Giants moved a little quicker on Dominguez as he played half the year in San Jose, and the second half in Richmond in the Eastern League. While he didn't go HAM with his power like some Giants fans would have hoped (the California League tends to be a launching pad for hitters), he still hit 11 home runs and posted a .174 ISO, .802 OPS and .355 wOBA in 279 plate appearances.

The strong showing in San Jose earned Dominguez a call up to Richmond and though he got off to a hot start (he had two home runs and eight doubles in his first 12 games with the Flying Squirrels), he tailed off and look overwhelmed at the end of the year in the Eastern League, as he finished the Double-A campaign with a .244/.272/.675 slash line. While Double-A is usually hard on hitters, Dominguez's plate approach did garner him many fans, as he posted a BB/K ratio of 0.12, highlighted by a 2.8 percent walk rate.

The age is a concern for Dominguez and though his 2011 campaign in Richmond wasn't terrible by any sorts, he certainly needs to improve next year at the plate if he wants to continue to be seen as a prospect with some high ceiling tools (remember, according to Piliere's scouting report, Dominguez's power and arm were both graded a 70 on a 20-80 scale). Yet there is some optimism with Dominguez, as Jonathan Mayo ranked him No. 8 in his Giants Top 10 prospect list this year (though to be fair, he hasn't included recent draftees, so it's likely he would tumble out of the top 10 if he included guys like Joe Panik, Kyle Crick and Andrew Susac), so it is entirely possible that Dominguez is capable of having a breakout year or at least something similar to what he did in Augusta in 2010 or San Jose in 2011.

I have never really been too high on Dominguez as a prospect in comparison to other Giants fans and writers. For starters, I think he's pretty old and he doesn't have much room to develop. From what I hear, have read and have seen on tape, he seems to be pretty much what he is: a big, athletic guy with some raw power and a great arm, but not much else. I could see him being able to dominate in the Minors after so many seasons there, but my gut instinct tells me that I don't see him doing much at the Major League level, if anything at all simply because I think his low-walk, high strikeout approach simply won't cut it at the Major League level, and it hasn't improved much, if at all, as he's moved up the system.

And then I read things like this...(hat tip to Dr. B of When the Giants Come to Town).

"My lasting recollection of Chris Dominguez from the SJ Giants game I saw early last year in Lake Elsinore is not so much the 2 HR's he hit in the game, but his physical presence. Chris is a big man, but he looks even bigger on the field. I mean, he really did look like a man playing with a bunch of boys out there. Chris Dominguez is a bit of an enigma in the making. I don't think anyone in the GIants system has more raw power, including Tommy Joseph. The big question is whether Chris will ever make enough contact to harness that power."

As a baseball fan (and I'm sure most scouts feel the same way), one can never write off a guy with a plus tool, especially power. For every Mike Jacobs out there (plus power tool guy who flopped), there is a Mark Reynolds whose plus tool carves them out a decent Major League career and one big season. Dominguez does not just have one, but  TWO plus tools. Sure, his other tool sets (speed, fielding, hitting for average) may be below average or below average at best, but when you have two tool sets rated a 70 by scouts, well...you just can't shrug that off. It means that the potential is there, and Dominguez has certainly flashed his power potential throughout his minor league career. He just hasn't put it together on a consistent basis.

Will he put it together to the point where he could be a serviceable Major League player? Right now, I, (and I think most scouts and analysts would agree) that he has a lot going against him. But, if he does put it together...

Well, let's just say a lot of scouts, analysts (and even myself) won't be all that surprised if he finds some Big League success.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Minor League Park Factors, League Run Environments, and Evaluating Giants Players' Stats Part II: Richmond and the EL

I looked at Part I last week where I looked at Fresno. This post, I'm going to look at Richmond and the Eastern League.

(For the record, I got the statistical information from Baseball Think Factory and The Hardball Times.)

Weighted Park Factors for The Diamond: 0.97 run factor, 1.00 hit factor, 0.96 doubles factor, 0.91 home run factor, 0.99 walk factor), 1.01 strikeout factor.

Run Environments for the Eastern League: 4.5 R/G, 4.5 BsR/G, 2.0 HR percentage, 8.7 walk percentage, 8.0 SBA percentage.

I only looked at one year mainly because the Giants' Double-A affiliate has only been in Richmond for one season. That being said, a lot of the same trends from Connecticut proved to be the same: the ball park favors the pitchers more so than the hitters. While Richmond is not as much as a pitcher's park as Richmond (the run factor was 0.91 in Connecticut), it's safe to say that you're going to see a regression in home run numbers for hitters who make the transition from the California League. (Though Richmond is not as bad on hitters when it comes to home runs, as Connecticut had a home run factor of 0.81).

The Diamond's dimensions are pretty normal by Minor League parks standards. It's 330 in right and left and 402 in center. Hence, while it isn't exactly too cavernous, there aren't any short porches or deep alleys that hitters can take advantage of.

In terms of the league, the Eastern League is a notorious pitcher's league. From 2007-2009, the league average batting average was .261 and the league average OPS was .727. While you could factor in the parks and environments of the teams in the Eastern League, the biggest key to the numbers favoring pitcher's is just the fact that the pitcher's are just a lot better than what you see in High Single-A or Triple-A. Most high end prospects make some kind of jump from Single A to Double A, so for the most part hitters face the best pitchers organizations have to offer and not retreads who are repeating levels (though you do see this sometimes as Osiris Matos is currently pitching in Double A).


What does this mean for Flying Squirrels Players?

I think the biggest sign of how a prospect will develop and turn out is how well they do in Double A. You see a lot hitters have great years in the California League, only to dramatically have down years in the Eastern League. Granted, you have to take their "down" years with a grain of salt. I think guys like Conor Gillaspie, Brandon Crawford and Darren Ford, players who had down seasons in Richmond in 2010 after good years in San Jose in 2009, are players who still performed well enough to maintain their status as "good" prospects. However, guys like Roger Kieschnick and Nick Noonan put their statuses in jeopardy in Richmond because they looked massively overwhelmed by the pitching (as evidenced by high strikeout rates and low walk rates and OPS numbers).

When you see hitters show power in the Eastern League, it usually turns out to be a pretty good sign. Brandon Belt for example put up incredible slugging numbers in Richmond (.623 slugging percentage in 201 plate appearances), which just goes to show you that he's a legitimate prospect with legitimate power. He wasn't benefiting from hitter's parks and he was facing the best pitchers organizations had to offer. Belt's stats in Richmond to me are confirmation that he will find success eventually at the Major League level despite his slow start with the Giants this year.

As for pitchers, the numbers are going to favor them, just because of the parks and environments. Much like any pitcher at any level, you want to see how he's walking guys and how well he's striking guys out. Furthermore, the Eastern League and Double A in general seems to be a prime point in evaluating a pitcher's development. Is he developing his secondary pitchers? Is his fastball continuing to have as much life as it did when he broke into Rookie League? How is his command faring and developing? Guys in Double A usually have one to a few years of professional experience when they arrive to the Eastern League, so it's a nice forum to see how they have improved or regressed since they first broke into the league.

To use an example, Madison Bumgarner's strikeout rates went down when he went to Connecticut, but he developed as a pitcher mainly because he minimized his walks (2.5 BB/9), hits (6.7 H/9) and took advantage of the park environments and defense around him (.236 BABIP). Tim Alderson on the other hand (the other Giants pitcher who was taken in the first round in 2007), has struggled because he has been extremely hittable (9.9 H/9 in 3 seasons in the Eastern League) and he doesn't have the stuff to blow guys away like he did in the California League (5.7 K/9 in three seasons in Double-A). It just goes to show you how the Eastern League can be a good indicator of which pitchers are ready to make the jump to the Show (e.g. Bumgarner) and ones who still have a lot more developing to do (e.g. Alderson).

Overall, you have to keep two things in mind when evaluating players in Richmond:

1.) Don't get discouraged too much if players aren't hitting well in the Eastern League (like I said, pitchers will have the advantage and the ones that do succeed are usually "elite" prospects anyways that are going to succeed at any level). They still can be good prospects and develop into good Major League players, they just need a little more time and that's okay as long as the numbers aren't too bad. That is why Crawford, Gillaspie and Ford earned promotions to Fresno even though their numbers were down in comparison to what they did in San Jose in 2009.

2.) Double A is a good indicator of which pitchers are going to develop into studs and which ones are going to struggle. And unlike hitters, multiple years in Double A for pitchers usually isn't a good thing, especially if they don't show improvement in multiple years.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Minor League Park Factors, League Run Environments and Evaluating Giants Players' Stats Part I: Fresno and the PCL

When it comes to evaluating the stats of minor league players, that can be a heated and touchy debate. Many people like to use numbers to project a players' chances of success at the Major League level, and there isn't anything wrong with doing that as long as you know which stats are important and ones that should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, John Bowker absolutely tore it up in the Pacific Coast League. However, as any Giants fan will tell you, Bowker's minor league success never really translated to the Major League level.

So what should Giants fans do in terms of determining whether Giants minor league player stats are for real or not? Well, two things should be kept in mind:

1.) Which leagues and levels tend to favor the hitters and which ones tend to favor pitchers?
2.) Which parks are hitter's parks and which ones are pitcher's parks?

Therefore, I wanted to take a look at each level and each park and see the park factors of each ballpark and run environments of each league in the Giants system. Of course, these numbers aren't sure fire. You still have to keep in consideration the plate approach of certain players (hitters with good BB/K ratios and pitchers with good K/BB ratios can overcome certain parks for example). That being said, I think looking at the park factors and run environments can be a telling sign of which players are having true success that can translate to the Major League level and which ones may struggle as they advance through the system or in the Majors.

Because of the length of this post, I decided to split it up into multiple parts. In this first part, I'm going to look at the Fresno Grizzlies, Chukchansi Park and the Pacific Coast League (and how it stacks against the International League), and what we should be looking for when it comes to evaluating Grizzlies players' numbers.

(For the record, I got the statistical information from Baseball Think Factory and The Hardball Times.)


Three-year weighted Park factors for Chukchnasi Park: 0.97 Run factor, 0.98 Hit factor, 0.93 Double factor, 1.13 Home Run factor, 0.98 Walk factor, 0.98 Strikeout factor.

Run environments for the Pacific Coast League (2007-2009): 5.1 runs per game, 5.0 base runs per game (base runs = baserunners * basesrunner scoring rate * home runs), 2.5 home run percentage, 8.5 walk percentage, 2.1 error percentage, 7.9 stolen base attempt rate (SBA/OPP).

Surprisingly, the run factor is actually below average at Chukchansi Park, which would suggest it's a pitcher's park. However, the home run factor at 1.13 is one of the highest factors in Triple-A. How is this so? Well, just judging by the dimensions of Chukchansi Park, it's not exactly a cavernous yard. So, while home runs may go out easier than most "average" Triple-A parks, other extra base hits are going to be harder to come by because of the smaller dimensions (hence the 0.95 double factor, which is below the 1.00 average).

In terms of the run environments of the Pacific Coast League, this really shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Since it's the last step for a player before he hits the Majors, the numbers are closer to what you would see in the National and American League rather than other leagues (mainly because players are more skilled, with most having some Major League experience). However, the PCL is a bit more of a hitter's league than it's counterpart, the International League, which tends to be more of a pitcher's league and favors "small ball."

To compare, the R/G average in the PCL was 5.1 and the BsR/G was 5.0, and the HR percentage was 2.5 and the stolen base attempt rate 7.9 from 2007-2009. In the International League, R/G and BsR/G was 4.4 and the HR percentage was a lot lower at 2.1. The biggest upgrade though came in stolen bases, as the SBA percentage was 9.5 percent, a 1.6 difference from the PCL.

There are a variety of factors in the differences between the International League and the PCL. Probably the biggest factor to the difference is the fact that the PCL is mostly situated in the West Coast and western part of the Midwest, where the weather is a lot drier. Weather and humidity factors aren't going to keep the ball in the park like in some parks in the Southeartern or Northeastern parts of the United States (where most clubs in the IL are located). Another big factor is the fact that the clubs with affiliates in the Pacific Coast League simply have more talent in Triple-A than the International League (the IL is lower than PCL in batting average, on-base percentage and slugging). It makes sense though, as most International League teams spend a ton of money on free agents to make up their roster and have most of their talent in the lower minors (like the Mets, Yankees and Red Sox) . There are some exceptions to the rules (Tampa Bay, Minnesota and Atlanta for example), but the PCL has more teams that rely on their own talent to stock their Major League rosters, and hence, there is going to be deeper talent at Triple-A (because guys are going to go up and down all the time).


What Does this Mean for Grizzlies Players?

I think you have to take a couple of things into consideration when evaluating talent on the Fresno roster: age is huge and hitting stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. In terms of the first point, it's one thing for a guy to dominate in Fresno, but guys in their late 20's or early thirties really are more four-A players rather than legitimate prospects. If you play long enough in the minors or the PCL, you're going to do well. That's a given. But can they do well at the Major League level? If they have been in the minors long enough, then there is probably some serious flaws in their game that prevents them from sticking to the 25-man roster, which just goes to show that stats can't be the sole component to evaluating a Grizzlies player.

In terms of point two, hitter's are going to have an advantage in the PCL because of the park factors and the fact that most pitchers in Triple-A are of the "four-A" mold. Just look at the Grizzlies rotation and you'll see that none of those guys are "elite" prospects by any measure. Most "elite" pitching prospects tend to bypass Triple-A all together and make the jump from Double-A to the Majors, so while the pitching in Triple-A isn't terrible, it isn't exactly stellar either. With these factors favoring hitters, offensive stats for Grizzlies (and most PCL) players are going to be inflated by some measure.

When looking at a Grizzlies offensive players, I would put less weight in stats like slugging and average and more salt into numbers like OBP and BB/K ratio. Because of the nature of Chukchansi, home runs are going to fly easier for hitters than they would at AT&T Park (simply because of the dimensions and weather factors), so to think power is going to "absolutely" translate from the PCL to the MLB level is usually unlikely (though the good hitters will translate it, but they also hit at other levels as well; guys who don't show power or consistency with their power until Triple-A are usually the ones you throw red flags at).

As for plate approach though, that is something that translates a little better. Do guys work the count and get on-base or are they wild swingers who don't walk much? And how much do they strike out? If they are striking out a lot in the PCL, how is that going to translate to the National League? It probably won't turn out good for that player when they get to the Giants roster. (Unless they are high walk guys as well, but even then, that's not a guarantee as some, like Bowker, didn't transition their impressive walk numbers to the Giants, but still flashed the same strikeout problems.)

When it comes to looking at Grizzlies players, yes the home runs and RBI and batting average numbers can be tempting, but it's important to not get too fooled by that. Like I said, while it could be a sign of a guy continuing to showcase power as they transition level to level, guys who suddenly have power outbursts in the PCL after not showing such skills in Double-A and lower are probably benefiting more from the League and Park rather than actually developing skills.

As for pitchers, most of the pitchers in Triple-A don't have much ceiling simply because most good pitching prospects spend little to no time in Triple-A (unless they are working some things out). If you are going to look at a pitcher, looking at strikeouts and K/BB ratio is probably the most important indicator of how they will perform at the Major League level. For the most part, guys who strike out a lot of batters, minimize balls in play and minimize their walks are the ones that succeed the most in the PCL (mainly because it's such a hitter's league and most BABIP numbers for pitchers are higher than the .300 average). Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of Grizzlies pitchers (or PCL pitchers in general) who sport these qualities, and the ones that do don't seem to stay in the PCL very long.

The reason? They are good pitchers and good pitchers make it to the Majors. They don't stick in Triple-A.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Comparing the Giants and Phillies Defensively

I just can't get over what Buster Olney said on Bill Simmons' MLB Playoff Podcast, which I listened to yesterday. Basically, I came away with four things:

1.) The Tampa Bay Rays Have the Best GM in baseball (probably true).
2.) The Red Sox are hurting in terms of the money they owe to contracts next year (true, but unnecessary considering the Red Sox aren't in the playoffs).
3.) The Mariners made a mistake by taking Justin Smoak from the Rangers instead of Jesus Montero in the Cliff Lee trade (very, very true when you consider Montero's a catcher).
4.) The Giants have no chance against the Phillies because of their offense (true) and defense.

(You can find the BS Report Podcast between Simmons and Olney here.)


The defense part kills me. Olney remarked to Simmons that the Giants had "one of the worst defenses in baseball." For a baseball writer, and one who likes to follow modern trends (e.g. some sabermetrics), I can't believe Olney would put his foot in his mouth like this.

So, to prove my point over Olney's, let's look and compare the Giants  position by position (on UZR and UZR/150 basis) to the Phillies who apparently are "better" defensively than the Giants.

Left Field: Pat Burrell vs. Raul Ibanez.
2010 OF UZR and UZR/150 for Burrell: 4.9 and 10.7.
2010 OF UZR and UZR/150 for Ibanez: minus-6.9 and minus-8.4.

The positive UZR and UZR/150 information is probably an aberration. Burrell is a career neagtive-39.7 outfielder defensively. This positive UZR and UZR/150 is the first instance in his career since 2004. That being said, Ibanez has been atrocious in the field this year and has been so in the past (career negative-20.4 UZR). At the very least, it's a wash, but I would give the benefit of the doubt to Burrell mainly because he has been better this year, while Ibanez has taken a dive after posting positive UZR numbers a season ago.

Edge: Giants.

Center Field: Andres Torres vs. Shane Victorino.
2010 OF UZR and UZR/150 for Torres:  21.2 and 24.8.
2010 OF UZR and UZR/150 for Victorino: 2.6 and 3.3.

Victorino has traditionally been a solid outfielder (career 30.5 UZR). But what Torres has done has been unbelievable. And it's not just a fluke either. Torres still posted very good UZR numbers a year ago (8.2) despite playing a sparing amount of games (his UZR/150 translated to 33). Torres can save runs and he can save runs in bunches, particularly helpful considering the Giants pitchers are primarily strikeout-flyball pitchers. You don't want to discredit Victorino and what he has done in his career, but the past two years, he can't hold a candle to what Torres has done defensively.

Edge: Giants

Right Field: Cody Ross vs. Jayson Werth.
2010 OF UZR and UZR/150 for Ross: 2.9 and 3.4.
2010 OF UZR and UZR/150 for Werth: negative-6.9 and negative-7.2.

This may be the toughest position to judge for both teams. Ross isn't incredible defensively, but at the very least he's average to above-average (career 3.5 UZR in OF). Werth has actually been great over his career (career 43.8 UZR in the OF), but has struggled this season. If you judge Werth against Jose Guillen (negative-23.1 UZR for his career in the OF), then the Phillies have this won outright. But then you consider Nate Schierholtz (6.4 UZR this year in RF), and suddenly the Giants have more depth (Ben Francisco, their backup right fielder posted negative UZR numbers). I'm just going to call this one a draw, mainly because I don't think Werth is as bad as his stats this year indicate, and Ross, while solid, is nothing special (though he certainly is a heck of a lot better defensively than Guillen).

Edge: Push.

Third Base: Pablo Sandoval vs. Placido Polanco.
2010 3B UZR and UZR/150 for Sandoval: 1.2 and 1.5.
2010 3B UZR and UZR/150 for Polanco: 10 and 11.3.

No doubt the Phillies have the edge here. Polanco has been stellar this year, and has been over his career (21.8 career UZR at third). Sandoval performed much better this year (he had a negative-3.6 UZR last year), but he has regressed in the second half, and he still has problems with his throwing accuracy at times. Even if Mike Fontenot starts at third, the Phillies still have the advantage with Polanco. Fontenot's career UZR is negative-4.2 at third base.

Edge: Phillies.

Shortstop: Juan Uribe vs. Jimmy Rollins.
2010 SS UZR and UZR/150 for Uribe: 2.1 and 3.3.
2010 SS UZR and UZR/150 for Rollins: 6.9 and 12.3.

This one is another matchup that clearly favors the Phillies...though not as much as people would like to think. Olney was pretty clear in calling out Uribe as a poor defensive shortstop. Now is he a gold glove candidate? Probably not, but he is better than his pudgy frame would suggest (career 18.5 UZR). Rollins of course is a better athlete and hence, a better defensive player (career 44.5 UZR), and the Phillies have the advantage in this department because Rollins is so great. They don't have the advantage though because Uribe is so poor, like Olney would like to think.

Edge: Phillies.

Second base: Freddy Sanchez vs. Chase Utley.
2010 2B UZR and UZR/150 for Sanchez: 5.9 and 9.3.
2010 2B UZR and UZR/150 for Utley: 10.3 and 12.9.

The Phillies take it again here, but it's closer than one would like to believe, especially if you look at UZR/150. I think when you take into consideration that Sanchez has been hurt most of the year, Sanchez's UZR numbers look a whole lot better (hence, the drop in difference in UZR/150 between him and Utley). Utley is one of the top second basemen in the game both offensively and defensively, so on just position alone, Utley is the clear favorite. But Sanchez is no slouch, and Fontenot has proven to be a more than adequate backup at second as well (8.6 career UZR at 2B).

Edge: Phillies.

First base: Aubrey Huff vs. Ryan Howard.
2010 1B UZR and UZR/150 for Huff: 5.4 and 9.7.
2010 1B UZR and UZR/150 for Howard: negative-12.8 and negative-11.6.

Olney also said in the podcast that Huff "probably should be a DH." Well, Buster, you haven't been watching the Giants season that closely if you think that. First all, Huff is significantly better than Howard at first. Second, in addition to better UZR numbers than Howard, Huff has also played three positions this year (left field and right field) and held his own (he only posted negative numbers in right field, but his UZR/150 was only negative-7.2, which isn't bad considering how hard it is to play right in AT&T Park). Huff not only showed that he can field adequately at first, but he showed that he can be mixed in the field and not be a complete disaster.

Edge: Giants.

Catcher: Buster Posey vs. Carlos Ruiz.
2010 stats for Posey: six errors, one passed ball, 37.1 CS percentage.
2010 stats for Ruiz: six errors, four passed balls, 28.6 CS percentage.

No question Posey is a better athlete than Ruiz. However, Posey showed great defense behind the plate this year for the Giants. His 37.1 CS percentage was fourth in the National League this year, not bad considering it is his first year. Furthermore, he was tied with Ruiz in terms of errors committed (4th best in the NL). Sure, Ruiz isn't much worse, but I'm giving this one to Posey, mainly because he's done all this as a rookie, and he has the better CS percentage.

Edge: Giants.

Team UZR in 2010:
Giants: 56.4 (2nd in MLB).
Phillies: negative-5.8 (17th in MLB).

Edge: Giants.

Verdict:
The Giants have the better outfield and catcher. The Phillies have the better infield (sans first base). On terms of count alone in the breakdown, the Giants beat the Phillies 4-3-1 (with the one draw being right field). Are the Giants much better than the Phillies defensively, probably, but not by much. That being said, I think this effectively refutes Olney's point on Simmons' podcast that the Giants are a lousy defensive team. They're not, and the numbers back it up.

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

Pitch Statistics
Pitch Type Avg Speed Max Speed Avg H-Break Avg V-Break Count Strikes / % Swinging Strikes / % Linear Weights Time to Plate
FF (FourSeam Fastball)88.1190.44.008.094831 / 64.58%2 / 4.17% 0.86530.424
CH (Changeup)85.8587.67.454.4143 / 75.00%1 / 25.00% -0.24730.436
SL (Slider)78.9488.3-2.422.361812 / 66.67%0 / 0.00% -0.66330.475
FC (Cutter)77.0377.7-4.673.5241 / 25.00%0 / 0.00% 0.04850.481
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)81.3081.37.224.1911 / 100.00%0 / 0.00% -0.06240.455
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 Statistics
Pitch Type Avg Speed Max Speed Avg H-Break Avg V-Break Count Strikes / % Swinging Strikes / % Linear Weights Time to Plate
FF (FourSeam Fastball)89.7092.44.149.205640 / 71.43%0 / 0.00% -0.01610.417
CH (Changeup)81.1881.96.036.1754 / 80.00%1 / 20.00% -0.34720.462
SL (Slider)82.4285.2-1.722.611711 / 64.71%2 / 11.76% 0.19380.454
CU (Curveball)71.7973-6.70-4.2297 / 77.78%1 / 11.11% -0.50030.526
FC (Cutter)85.1085.3-1.914.9720 / 0.00%0 / 0.00% 0.07490.437
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)80.6981.96.585.0274 / 57.14%0 / 0.00% -0.50740.460
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.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

How Does the Giants' Tim Lincecum Stack Up Against the Rockies' Ubaldo Jimenez?

The hot talk this year has been all about Ubaldo Jimenez, and for good reason. In addition to throwing the season's first no-hitter, he has a 13-1 record and a 1.15 ERA going into today's start against Boston. Chances are, if there is any Cy Young talk, Jimenez is always the first guy mentioned.

However, would you believe me if I said that on paper, Tim Lincecum's 2010 is more impressive than Jimenez's?

First off, this is strictly a look at the numbers. I'm not saying Lincecum has been better than Jimenez or that Jimenez isn't impressive. Jimenez's stuff is incredible (he averages 96.5 MPH on his fastball), and I think Giants fans can attest to that after watching him dominate at AT&T Park earlier this year.

Other than the eye test though, as well as the wins and ERA (which as we all know, can be flawed measures of evaluating a pitcher's success), Jimenez's numbers pales in comparison to Lincecum.

Let's take a look at some of the advanced numbers for both pitchers.

Jimenez: 7.82 K/9, 3.20 BB/9, 2.44 K/BB, 0.27 HR/9, .185 AVG., 1.00 WHIP, 91.2 percent LOB %, 2.94 FIP, 3.62 xFIP.
Lincecum: 10.10 K/9, 3.49 BB/9, 2.90 K/BB, 0.45 HR/9, .226 AVG., 1.21 WHIP, 76.7 percent LOB %, 2.73 FIP, 3.14 xFIP.

Lincecum dominates Jimenez's in the strikeout department, and while Jimenez has an advantage in the walks department, it really doesn't make that much of a difference (for Jimenez's K/BB is still lower than Lincecum's). I find the most startling stats his FIP and xFIP numbers, which are higher than Lincecum's. For as dominating as Jimenez's stuff has been, it seems, just looking at his FIP numbers, that he has gotten a lot of help from his defense and has gotten luckier in comparison to Lincecum. I believed this even more when I took a look at this stat:

Jimenez: .239 BABIP.
Lincecum: .313 BABIP.

Jimenez's BABIP is 63 points BELOW the league average, while Lincecum's is 11 points ABOVE league average. As good as Jimenez has been, there is no way he can sustain a BABIP that low for the remainder of the season. Yes, a good defense behind him, and the lack of good contact against him (his line drive percentage is 13.8 percent, while Lincecum's is 22 percent) may explain why hitters haven't been able to find hits against Jimenez. However, in the grand scheme of things, Jimenez's BABIP will only go up, which will affect his other numbers such as ERA and wins (unless the offense picks him up, which is possible because the Rockies have a good offense).

Another reason why I like Lincecum more than Jimenez this season? Lincecum has allowed less contact to hitters in 2010 than Jimenez. Lincecum has a contact rate of 72.2 percent this year, and a swinging strike percentage of 11.9 percent. Jimenez on the other hand has a contact rate of 79 percent (almost two points higher than last season) and only has a swinging strike percentage of 8.5 percent (Jimenez has never had a swinging strike percentage in double figures, while Lincecum has never had a swinging strike percentage under 10 percent).

What does this mean? For as wicked as Jimenez's stuff is, he simply doesn't get batters to miss as much as Lincecum. While this is not necessarily a bad thing (as Greg Maddux showed), this kind of pitching style can be subject to inconsistency. Sure, Jimenez is dealing now because the balls are going to infielders. That being said, should the luck run out or the defense decline behind him, Jimenez's numbers will look far less impressive. As for Lincecum, because he can strike guys out more consistently, and induces less contact than Jimenez, his numbers will be more stable, because he's relying less on his defense and luck.

I'm not trying to take away anything from Jimenez. He has been impressive, and I've seen a lot of his starts, so I can attest visually, he's a real deal ace. In my mind, comparing Jimenez and Lincecum is like comparing "The Godfather" against "Goodfellas" in terms of which is the better mob movie. They're both good, but it's all a matter of opinion really. (And if those two are those movies, then Todd Wellemeyer is "Fatal Desire." Seriously, if you have Netflix, add it to your instant queue. It may be one of the most unintentionally funny Thrillers ever made.)

What I am trying to prove though is that Jimenez's season so far may not be as impressive as everyone would like to think, and that Lincecum's season may not be as down as some baseball fans would like to believe as well. Jimenez is bound to regress, and Lincecum is bound to take care of his control problems and improve.

Giants fans saw that last night from Lincecum against the Astros. I am interested to see how Jimenez will do against Boston tonight.

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.


Pitch Statistics
Pitch Type Avg Speed Max Speed Avg H-Break Avg V-Break Count Strikes / % Swinging Strikes / % Linear Weights Time to Plate
FF (FourSeam Fastball)90.9493.80.308.924828 / 58.33%0 / 0.00% 0.91530.410
CH (Changeup)83.7085.7-2.652.983225 / 78.13%8 / 25.00% -0.27620.443
CU (Curveball)78.1981.12.25-6.622712 / 44.44%3 / 11.11% -0.07600.480
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)92.6597.7-6.958.321310 / 76.92%1 / 7.69% -0.43630.404
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 Statistics
Pitch Type Avg Speed Max Speed Avg H-Break Avg V-Break Count Strikes / % Swinging Strikes / % Linear Weights Time to Plate
FF (FourSeam Fastball)90.9693.1-4.9610.406740 / 59.70%5 / 7.46% -0.21390.413
CH (Changeup)84.6790.6-7.533.762717 / 62.96%5 / 18.52% -1.54020.444
SL (Slider)85.4085.42.051.3610 / 0.00%0 / 0.00% 0.04210.435
CU (Curveball)76.3982.73.59-5.121610 / 62.50%1 / 6.25% -1.34950.492
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)92.2092.9-6.967.7821 / 50.00%0 / 0.00% -0.01830.403
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-by-Inning Pitch Totals
Inning Pitches in Inning Strikes in Inning Strike% in Inning Cumulative Total Pitches Pitch LWTS in Inning
111872.7311-0.834
2352160.00460.467
3141071.4360-0.862
4191052.63790.505
5221463.641010.592
6191263.161200.258


Cain


Inning-by-Inning Pitch Totals
Inning Pitches in Inning Strikes in Inning Strike% in Inning Cumulative Total Pitches Pitch LWTS in Inning
110660.0010-0.834
2201365.0030-0.350
317847.0647-0.532
411654.55580.611
5211361.9079-0.034
67571.4386-0.561
713753.8599-0.532
8141071.43113-0.848

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).

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

How Real Is Andres Torres' 2010 Season?

If there is one player on this Giants roster that is hard to project for the rest of the season, it has to be Andres Torres.

Based on statistical data, Torres' 2010 is simply unbelievable considering his history.

Here is Torres' line before he came to San Francisco in 2009:

.210 batting average, .258 OBP, .276 slugging, .534 OPS, .219 wOBA in 89 games between Detroit and Texas from 2002-2005.

Here is what he has done since coming to the Bay Area:

.281 average, .363 OBP, .513 slugging, .877 OPS, .385 wOBA in 118 games with the Giants from 2009-2010.

That's an incredible jump, especially in the categories of OBP (where he jumped 105 points), wOBA (166 points) and slugging (237 points). Basically, Torres turned himself from free hacking, slap hitter (think a poor man's Juan Pierre) to a patient, speedy leadoff hitter with serious pop (think Brady Anderson).

Now, who is the real Torres? Is Torres going to keep up this hitting prowess for the remainder of the 2010 season? Or is he going to fall back to his career numbers prior to his arrival in San Francisco?

Well, Giants fans should believe in the latter and I'll point to you a reason why:

Torres is a different player from his Tiger and Ranger days, and his minor league numbers in 2007 and 2008 and improvement from 2009 to 2010 show that.

Since 2005, Torres pretty much bounced around in Triple-A. He played for four Triple-A clubs from 2005-2009: Oklahoma (Texas), Rochester (Minnesota), Iowa (Chicago), Toledo (Detroit), and Fresno (San Francisco). (He also played for a Double-A club, the Erie Seawolves, in 2007.)

In 2005 and 2006, Torres seemed to be the same player he was in Detroit and Texas (e.g. a slap hitter without much plate patience). He posted a a .743 OPS in 15 games with Oklahoma in 2005 and a .687 OPS (and .317 wOBA) in 118 games with Rochester the following the season.

However, starting in 2007, Torres' numbers took a huge spike...in a good way.

Starting in Double-A Erie, the Tigers' Double-A club, Torres posted solid numbers in 85 games. His OPS improved to .844 in Double-A, his OBP jumped to .372, and he hit 11 triples and six home runs (he had only 11 triples and home runs combined the previous season in Rochester).

Later in the year, Torres was promoted to Toledo, the Tigers' Triple-A club. He continued to show the power he showed in Double-A in the International League. While his OBP went down (to .348), his slugging went up (from .472 in Double-A to .506 in Triple-A) as did his OPS (from .844 to .854). What was the reason for the average jumps? In 42 games, Torres hit nine triples and four home runs.

Now, the OBP drop in Toledo was to be expected. After making progress in drawing walks (Torres has a 0.56 and 0.58 BB/K ratios in 2006 in Rochester and 2007 in Toledo, which included walk rates over 10 percent), he took a step back in Toledo. His BB/K ratio hovered around 0.28, and his walk percentage dropped to 5.8 percent in Triple-A (almost a five point drop from Double-A).

However, the following season in Iowa, Torres brought back his BB/K numbers up to the numbers he put up in Rochester and Erie. In 2008, he finished the year with a 0.53 BB/K ratio (which included an 11.5 percent BB/9). The better part though about his 2008 season? His power didn't drop from Toledo despite the better plate discipline.

With the Cubs, Torres posted a .892 OPS and a .397 wOBA. His wRC (runs created based on wOBA) was 86.7, 28 points higher than his previous high in Double-A in 2007, and in addition to hitting 10 triples, 11 home runs and scoring 91 runs, he also stole 29 bases on 33 attempts.

Granted, Torres put up these numbers as a 30 year old in Triple-A. As evidenced by Joe Borchard this year in Fresno, that doesn't necessarily translate into big league success.

Despite those odds being against him, Torres has succeeded at the Major League level with the Giants. Furthermore, he has shown progression from 2009 as well.

One of the reasons I was skeptical of Torres going into the 2010 season was because of his low BB/K ratio (0.36 in 2009), high O-Swing percentage (29.1 percent), low contact rate (72.3), and low GB/FB percentage (0.69) considering his speed (eight triples and six stolen bases in 170 plate appearances in 2009).

So far, he has improved on those numbers. While his contact rate (81.3 percent in 2010) and GB/FB ratio (0.93; but he's helped by a 26.2 percent line drive percentage) aren't anything special, they certainly are improvements from 2009. However, his main improvement has been in his O-Swing percentage (pitches swung outside the strike zone) and BB/K ratio. He cut down his O-Swing percentage to 23.2 percent and his BB/K ratio sits at 0.76.

Torres has the credentials of a true leadoff hitter in 2010, something you couldn't necessarily say out of him last year based on his stats.

Overall, Torres has been a surprise, and it will be predictable to see his stats regress over time. His BABIP is high at .343, and considering his GB/FB ratio, it is likely that it won't sustain at that level for the remainder of the season.

However, if you look at his overall statistics, Torres has made incredible progress as a Giant, and he should continue to make an impact in the leadoff spot. Now, I know Giants fans worry that he might fall back into the numbers of his Tiger days, but I think Giants fans shouldn't fret. Torres isn't the same player, and his minor league numbers from 2007 and 2008, and his improvement in plate discipline from 2009 to 2010 is proof that that this "San Francisco" Torres is different from the "Detroit" Torres.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Bad Month or Bad Overall? A Look at the Giants' Offensive Numbers

The San Francisco Giants are currently 22-21 after the Oakland A's completed a three-game sweep at Oakland-Alameda County Stadium (God I hate writing the whole name...I'll just call it the OAC from now on). Panic mode has officially reared its ugly head with Giants fans, and I hate to admit it, but I've hopped on that bandwagon somewhat as well.

However, as a baseball fan, I try to be objective. I look at the numbers and try to keep things in context. I understand Bengie Molina currently has an OBP of .361 and a 0.85 BB/K ratio. That being said, Molina has a career 0.43 BB/K ratio and OBP of .309, so to think he's going to maintain those levels over the full course of a season in my mind is unrealistic.

The same thinking goes with this entire Giants offense. I know. They are coming off two straight sweeps to two, average ballclubs (Arizona and Oakland). Injuries and ineffectiveness have hit this Giants roster hard, and there seems to be increasing pressure on general manager Brian Sabean to make a move, especially with guys like Pat Burrell available. (I'm sure Sabes is "working around the clock" on this; I can picture his reaction if you ask him if he's working on getting an offensive player.)

But how bad has the Giants offense been? Well...let's take a look at the more advanced numbers.

OPS: .722 (19th in MLB).
wOBA (weighted on base average): .319 (19th in MLB).
wRC (runs created based on wOBA): 179 (tied for 21st in MLB).
wRAA (runs above average based on wOBA): minus-9 (19th in MLB).
BABIP (batting average of balls put in play): .299 (tied for 19th in MLB).
ISO (Isolated Power): .136 (21st in MLB).

As you can see, the Giants during the first two months haven't been just below league average. They have had trouble scoring runs (like last year), which hasn't been helped by their relative lack of power (the ISO number I think is the particular killer) or their lineup choices (batting Aaron Rowand at leadoff for so long was a mistake, especially considering his minus-1.7 wRAA is third worst of Giants hitters with 50 or more plate appearances).

However, while the numbers after 43 games certainly isn't in the Giants hitters' favor, you have to look at the month of May specifically. Some interesting numbers pop up.

OPS: .670 (25th in MLB).
wOBA: .298 (25th in MLB).
wRC: 72 (27th in MLB).
wRAA: minus-18 (25th in MLB).
BABIP: .275 (26th in MLB).
ISO: .130 (20th in MLB).

The Giants have been tremendously worse in May, with the only category better than their overall season averages being the ISO, which actually isn't too bad (or at least for Giants standards). The wOBA, wRC and wRAA numbers are particularly disheartening, but I think Giants fans can take comfort in one stat:

The .275 BABIP.

Now, BABIP can mean a variety of things. The Giants could be unlucky (which most certainly has been the case considering their 19.1 percent line drive percentage in May is 12th best in the league) or they just have bumped into very good defensive teams (the Padres, Diamondbacks and Mets, three teams the Giants have played in May, all have solid UZR/150 numbers this year).

However, in all likelihood the BABIP is going to rise or at the very least, fluctuate (the Giants had a .317 BABIP in April) as the season progresses, which will in turn, affect the Giants' offensive numbers. I don't think the Giants are going to top the Majors in offense in a given month anytime soon, but at the same time, I don't think the Giants are going to have as bad a month offensively as they have had this May.

Granted, how is that BABIP going to change? Who knows. The Giants will get luckier, they will face "clunkier" defensive teams (the Dodgers and Rockies have negative UZR/150 numbers, with the Dodgers having the worst UZR/150 in the Majors at negative-15.4) and guys will turn it around and bust out of their respective slumps (crossing my fingers now for Pablo Sandoval). I think those are the best (if only) things Giants fans, management and players can hope for at this point.

Now, Giants fans have to keep things in perspective. The Giants are not a well-built team offensively. Mark Derosa has been a major disappointment (he has a team-worst .243 wOBA), and Molina and Rowand have been deceivingly tolerable (Molina's wOBA at .328 proves that he isn't much better from last season; Rowand's wRAA says it all). And, while Freddy Sanchez has just gotten back from the disabled list, I'm not optimistic about him living up to that $12 million contract if he has more performances like the one he had today (0-for-4, 2 SO).

The Giants have some good pieces though (Andres Torres, who has a .383 wOBA and Aubrey Huff and his .354 wOBA has been a surprise as well), and the offense can still be good enough to remain competitive in the NL West (especially considering their pitching, which has still remained solid...sans the middle relief).

After all, if you look at the division-leading Padres, they rank below the Giants in nearly every offensive category in May, but their BABIP still hovers at .300. When the Padres hit a bad stretch of luck (which they will), it is likely that they will free fall in the standings as well.

It has been a disappointing start to the season, especially when you factor in the poor starts Colorado and Los Angeles got off to. However, the Giants have an opportunity to stay in it, and I think the numbers above show that the Giants have suffered some bad luck and poor management decisions, which I don't think (or at least hope) will happen again. With manager Bruce Bochy mixing up the lineup (and in a good way too), I think there is potential for the Giants to improve those offensive categories a little bit come June.

Will the improvement offensively in the long run by the Giants hitters be enough to win a World Series or NL Pennant? Most likely not. Will it be enough to win the NL West or earn a playoff spot? Maybe. Will it be enough to stay competitive in the NL West?

When you got pitchers like Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Barry Zito, and Jonathan Sanchez in the starting rotation...absolutely.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Is Waldis Joaquin Entering Alex Hinshaw Territory?

So far, this year, it has been an up and down season for the Giants bullpen. Some guys have gotten off to good starts, but have imploded on some big moments (e.g. Brian Wilson and Sergio Romo). Some guys have been a shell of who they were last season (e.g. Brandon Medders and Jeremy Affeldt). And some guys...well...they have been pretty good (e.g. Dan Runzler and Guillermo Mota).

Overall, I deeply believe the Giants have the best bullpen in the National League West...though not statistically at the present moment. They are behind Colorado (second) and San Diego (third) in terms of team bullpen ERA in the Majors (Colorado has a 2.58 ERA; San Diego sports a 2.65 ERA), but the Giants are not that far behind considering how early it is in the season (the Giants are seventh and have a bullpen ERA of 3.20).

Lost in the shuffle though of the Romos, Wilsons and Affeldts in the bullpen however is Waldis Joaquin.

For those who don't know, Joaquin was recently optioned to Triple-A Fresno after Aaron Rowand returned off his stint on the 15-day disabled list.

It makes sense from a Giants management perspective. Wilson, Romo, Mota, Runzler, Affeldt and Medders are way ahead of Joaquin in terms of standing in the bullpen, and Joaquin hasn't really lived up to his potential either this season.

In 4.2 IP, Joaquin sports a 9.64 ERA, a 2.79 WHIP and has allowed six hits and seven walks. To make matters worse, Joaquin, a flamethrower who averaged 96.2 MPH last year and 94.4 MPH on his fastball this year, hasn't struck out many batters. After striking out 12 batters in 10 IP in a short callup in 2009, Joaquin has only managed to punch out two batters.

Those numbers have produced god awful K/9 and BB/K ratios (3.86 and 0.29, respectively) which makes most sabermetrics and baseball fans shudder.

And what makes things worse? His stats eerily look similar to another "hard-throwing pitcher with command-problems reliever" from last year: Alex Hinshaw.

After a solid 2008 season with the Giants where he appeared in 48 games and posted an ERA of 3.40 and a K/9 of 10.66, Hinshaw absolutely struggled in short action with the Giants bullpen in 2009. Hinshaw gave up 10 hits and allowed 8 runs and 7 walks in 6 IP.

With already a solid staff in the Giants' 2009 bullpen, it came as no surprise why Hinshaw spent the majority of the season in Fresno (he pitched 46 games for the Grizzlies).

Could the same happen to Joaquin in 2010?

It is possible. Hitters have found a tremendously easy ability to find a hit against Joaquin, as evidenced by his .350 BABIP this season. Hinshaw suffered through the same problem in his nine appearances in 2009. His BABIP was .349.

However, while they share similar strand rates (Joaquin has a 57.1 percent strand rate so far; Hinshaw had a 63.4 percent strand rate), there is something that Joaquin is better at doing than Hinshaw: inducing groundballs.

Hinshaw is not a groundball pitcher. In his two stints in San Francisco, Hinshaw posted GB/FB rates of 0.48 and 0.58. What makes this ratio even worse is that when hitters hit fly balls against Hinshaw, they have made them count. The past two seasons, Hinshaw's HR/FB rate has been 10 percent (2008) and 16.7 percent (2009).

This doesn't seem to be the problem with Joaquin. Last year, Joaquin posted a GB/FB ratio of 3.60. This year? That ratio had improved to 5.00. Granted, Joaquin has allowed more line drives this season than Hinshaw did in 2009 (25 percent to 17.4 percent), but hitters haven't made Joaquin pay too badly when it comes to fly balls this year (Joaquin hasn't given up a homer this year, and he only allowed one last year).

Thus, that is why I am more optimistic that Joaquin can bounce back after a short tenure with the Grizzlies than Hinshaw (and I don't necessarily hate Hinshaw either). Look at the game logs for 2010 for Joaquin and 2009 for Hinshaw. Joaquin looks much better than Hinshaw, and in the grand scheme of things, Joaquin wasn't all that terrible. What really sealed the deal (e.g. being demoted) for Joaquin was the April 16th opener against the Dodgers.  Check out his pitch F/X for that game:



What did all that wildness produce? Four walks, two hits, two earned runs in two innings pitched. Yikes. That is about as good as Josh Hartnett's performance in the "Black Dahlia."

Granted, his performance against the Braves (1.2 IP, two walks, two hits, three runs allowed) was pretty bad too. But it was only two performances. Is Joaquin capable of having bad performances like the ones against Los Angeles and Atlanta? Sure, but he is also capable of having solid performances, like his debut against the Astros on April 6th (12 strikes thrown, 4 balls thrown, 0.2 IP, 1 strikeout).

Is Joaquin entering that "Promising for a bit, but now falling back to earth" phase that Hinshaw drudged through in 2009? Perhaps, but I don't believe Giants fans should throw in the towel and say "Joaquin is the next Merkin Valdez!" just yet.

I think Joaquin making the Opening Day roster was a premature decision by general manager Brian Sabean (he has only pitched 10 innings at the Triple-A level). With some more experience and tuning of his command in Fresno (he has only thrown 45.3 percent of his pitches for strikes this year) , I don't think it's out of the question to see Joaquin back up my August, ready to contribute to the Giants bullpen once again.

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).





Pitch Statistics
Pitch TypeAvg SpeedMax SpeedAvg H-BreakAvg V-BreakCountStrikes / %Swinging Strikes / %NibblenessTime to Plate
FF (FourSeam Fastball)85.9687.66.3710.203319 / 57.58%2 / 6.06%6.220.437
CH (Changeup)74.2475.96.882.68128 / 66.67%1 / 8.33%4.150.503
SL (Slider)78.3681.5-3.921.812014 / 70.00%2 / 10.00%8.170.476
CU (Curveball)73.1476.5-5.34-10.982516 / 64.00%4 / 16.00%8.650.526
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)85.5987.59.257.592918 / 62.07%1 / 3.45%4.740.438
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-by-Inning Pitch Totals
InningPitches in InningStrikes in InningStrike% in InningCumulative Total Pitches
1161487.5016
2221254.5538
3271762.9665
411981.8276
513861.5489
68675.0097
712975.00109
8131076.92122



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.