NL West Rotational Overview
by Rox Girl on Jan 16, 2008 2:40 PM MST
in Rockpile
15 comments
A week or so ago I looked at the lineups and benches of the division's five teams by using OPS+, so I figure I might as well do the same with each team's rotation and ERA+. Now keep in mind, both these stats have their weaknesses, but I think ERA+ in particular has a pretty shaky track record as a predictive stat.
Which calls into question why I'm using it to predict stuff. I don't know. Prolly cuz I'm bored, okay?
Arizona 85%
Brandon Webb, 29 - 156
Danny Haren, 27 - 137
Randy Johnson, 44 - 123
Doug Davis, 32 - 111
Micah Owings, 25 - 109
Colorado 75%
Jeff Francis, 27 - 114
Aaron Cook, 29 - 116
Ubaldo Jimenez, 24 - 112
Jason Hirsh, 26 - 100
Kip Wells, 31 - 77
Los Angeles 64%
Brad Penny, 30 - 151
Derek Lowe, 35 - 118
Chad Billingsley, 23 - 138
Hiroki Kuroda, 33 - ?
Jason Schmidt, 36 - 72
San Diego 80%
Jake Peavy, 27 - 159
Chris Young, 29 - 129
Greg Maddux, 42 - 98
Mark Prior, 27 - 64 (2006)
Randy Wolf, 31 - 97
San Francisco 74%
Matt Cain, 23 - 122
Tim Lincecum, 24 - 111
Barry Zito, 30 - 98
Noah Lowry, 27 - 113
Kevin Correia, 27 - 129
-----
Where to begin? Yeah, Arizona is really good, with the best rotation in the NL, and maybe this measure makes them look even better. It's also interesting to me that the Rockies, Dodgers and Padres are all banking on comebacks by players at the bottoms of their rotation, but all three have capable -and in the case of the Dodgers and Rockies more than capable- Plan B's on the farm in case the veterans don't work out.
Speaking of Plan B's, the percentages next to each team represent how many starts in 2007 were made by somebody projected to be in the rotation last Spring. In Arizona's case, because RJ started the season on the shelf, I counted Micah Owings as being their #5 even though it's probably technically correct that Edgar Gonzales had the early hold on the role, so that 85% might be a little misleading. At any rate, even with that, the five teams in the division had just under a quarter of their starts made by guys not in the original one through five.
I'm working on a bigger project involving team depth for the division that I'll post some day before Spring training, but for now, here are some key potential fill ins for each team:
Arizona
Yusmeiro Petit, 23 - 103
Edgar Gonzalez, 25 - 94
Colorado
Franklin Morales, 22 - 140
Mark Redman, 34 - 59
Los Angeles
Esteban Loaiza, 36 - 55
James McDonald, 23 - ?
San Diego
Justin Germano, 25 - 129
Clay Hensley, 28 - 59
San Francisco
Patrick Misch, 26 - 105
Jonathan Sanchez, 25 - 75
Figure also that Los Angeles, Colorado and San Diego have some high end prospects that figure to see late season call-ups in Clayton Kershaw, Greg Reynolds and Wade LeBlanc respectively. I'd include the Diamondbacks and Maz Scherzer in this bunch, but I think he -like Casey Weathers for us, and Jonathan Meloan for the Dodgers- will be a big addition to their bullpen rather than their rotation.
Okay, so this gives me a little bit of a framework from which to start making guesses as to what happens in 2008 as far as starters are concerned.
One, Los Angeles' rotation age sticks out like a sore thumb in the division to me. A couple of the other teams have a single 40+ year old Hall of Famer, but LA just seems to be loading in a lot of risk with four starters age 30 or over. They might be forced to push McDonald and Kershaw into the spotlight too fast. I know the White Sox won the World Series a couple of seasons ago with a similarly aged rotation to start the year, but they seemed to be the exception rather than the rule recently.
What's more, I think performance wise, the Dodgers might be overrated outside of Billingsley. Penny had a career year last season, and appears to have gotten lucky with his HR rate early in 2007. Look for him to settle back to Earth. Lowe should be declining at this point in his career and Schmidt already has. LA's just a couple of injuries away (and Schmidt's feels inevitable) from having to rely on three pitchers -Kuroda, McDonald and Kershaw- who haven't thrown a single pitch to MLB hitters to make up the performance gap with Arizona and I just don't see it happening. I know some projections like the Dodgers almost as much as Arizona, but I think LA could conceivably wind up with the worst rotation in the division this year with just a little bad luck.
If everything goes perfectly to plan, San Diego's back end could wind up second only to Shakira's. Unfortunately, if it doesn't, they might end up wishing they signed her to take the mound for them instead. Considering the state of Mark Prior's and Randy Wolf's throwing arms, how Chris Young struggled at the end of last season and Maddux's continuing decline, I just see the Padres rotation as ripe for disappointment. Realize that I'm typically surprised by how well San Diego's pitching after Peavy does, so I'll just throw that out there. I still think they might be scrambling for a starter at the trade deadline.
San Fran and Colorado both have solid, though unspectacular, rotations. Right now, I'd rate the Giants as a bit better, but it's not as much of a margin as their fans would have you believe, and it's not nearly enough of one to make up the ground they lose on offense. Morales is a better replacement than Misch or Sanchez, Reynolds figures to be as well, so by the end of the season the Rockies rotation could be ahead, particularly if the Giants trade one of their starters for a rebuilding plan.
That leaves Arizona as the class in the division. This exercise did nothing to dissuade me from that opinion. If anything, it's convinced me that the difference between them and who I had originally presumed to be second best (the Dodgers) is greater than I thought. The Diamondbacks do look considerably weaker when I do my next check and play the assassination game by taking out each team's top starter and filling in his slot with their best (not necessarily first) near ready replacement option instead. The drop in stuff from Webb to soft tossing RHP's Gonzalez or Petit is huge compared to the difference between Francis and Morales, Penny and Kershaw or Peavy and LeBlanc.
So does the division just go along hoping Brandon Webb gets injured? Pretty much. I think Johnson particularly, but also Davis are vulnerable to injury or letdown and I can also see Haren taking a step back this season from 2007, but without several of those small knocks happening at once or one big Webb injury, I think Arizona stays ahead in starters' contributions for 2008. How far ahead depends on a lot of stuff -like those injuries- that's just not reliably predictable, but I still think there's a good chance that we can stay close enough to allow our offense to make up the gap.
NL West Starting Rotations for 2008
- Arizona
- San Francisco
- Colorado
- Los Angeles
- San Diego
0 recs |
15 comments
Email
Print
Comments
As for the Dodgers...
http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2008/01/16/gm-colletti-discusses-the-dodgers-2008-roster/
by ET90210 on Jan 16, 2008 5:23 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
More Danny Haren
by Rox Girl on Jan 16, 2008 6:42 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
While true...
by MattTheRock on Jan 17, 2008 9:41 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
SanFran has a nice setup...
The Rocks and dBacks have a nice blend of youth and experience, both are hoping that Cook and Johnson can stay healthy. However the Colorado rotation has some young breakthrough guys that are going to be special and I don't see Arizona's prospects fitting into that category. Plus is Dan Haren really that good?
by Charlie77 on Jan 16, 2008 8:55 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
My take
Webb 3.02, 2.87
Haren 3.57, 3.46
Davis 4.38, 4.10
Johnson 4.03, 3.10
Owings 4.26, 4.25
So, basically, just normal age-related decline for everybody. And Haren, while very good, isn't the ace that some people seem to think he is. I think we're in agreement here.
Cook 3.90, 3.91
Francis 3.93, 3.58
Hirsh 4.37, 4.63
Jimenez 4.78, 4.68
Towers 4.84, 4.17
(Morales 5.06, 5.40)
Things to note here:
- Francis is projected to decline simply because 2007 represented a new high for him, and he's too old to be expected to retain most of that improvement. We may not like it, but the projection system does this for everyone. I don't see any reason to believe it's wrong, and I think descending into fanboy-ish reasons why Francis could beat the machine is a waste of time.
- Ubaldo's projection is dragged down by his 2005. But even so, the fact that his aggregate 2007 numbers are mediocre at best should temper our enthusiasm.
- Towers's 2006 season kills his projection, and he also has a tendency of underperforming his FIP.
- I think, from these numbers, it's clear why expecting even league-averageness from Morales is a major reach.
Lowe 3.99, 3.50
Billingsley 4.00, 3.55
Kuroda 4.19, 4.30
Schmidt 4.28, 5.92
You say that Penny and Lowe will decline significantly, and that Schmidt already has. The projections could not agree more (and my Schmidt projection appears to be more pessimistic than other systems'). There's just one problem: even with those things accounted for, this is a really good rotation. You're right to question their depth, though. Non-tendering Mark Hendrickson was inane.
Peavy 3.15, 3.02
Young 3.70, 3.54
Maddux 4.17, 3.70
Germano 4.62, 4.39
Wolf 4.82, 3.65
See above. You're right to express pessimism where you do, but that doesn't mean that this isn't still an excellent rotation (note that Chris Young's great 2007 season was mostly BABIP, which doesn't show up in these numbers).
Cain 3.44, 3.53
Lincecum 3.10, 3.17
Zito 4.24, 4.53
Lowry 4.40, 4.54
Correia 4.73, 3.79
Not much to discuss here, and nobody really cares about the '08 Giants anyway.
Putting this all together (and adding in little things like pitchers' batting, which doesn't really make a difference except for Owings, but which is nice to have accounted for), here's how the projections see these five rotations, measured by runs above average:
ARI 51
SF 32
LAD 30
SD 29
COL -5
This is a problem. This is a huge problem. And the reasons for it are obvious. One, our ace is the eighth-best pitcher in the division. Two, unless Jimenez and Morales blow away their projections, we don't have the depth that other teams do. The other four teams all have three guys who are league-average or better, and we only have two.
And one more thing:
"The drop in stuff from Webb to soft tossing RHP's Gonzalez or Petit is huge compared to the difference between Francis and Morales, Penny and Kershaw or Peavy and LeBlanc."
Well, Jarrod Parker has better stuff than Gonzalez or Petit, and since you mentioned Kershaw, it's clear that big-league readiness isn't part of the equation here, so he's the guy you should be looking at.
But that's stupid. Which is my point. Sure, Morales has far better stuff than the D'Backs 6th and 7th starters do, but he's also likely to walk about twice as many guys as Gonzalez will (or, in simpler terms, he just doesn't project well yet). And then there's the other obvious thing to note here, which is that if the difference between Webb and Gonzalez is anywhere close to the difference between Francis and Morales, Gonzalez is much better than Morales, because Francis isn't in Webb's league.
by Heltonfan on Jan 16, 2008 10:18 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
correction
by Heltonfan on Jan 16, 2008 10:21 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent work
Let's start with the Padres. I think I'm seeing an even bigger drop for Greg Maddux this season than the numbers do. At forty-two he's already proven himself an anomaly, but the serious erosion of his K/9 over the last three seasons leads me to think that hitters are getting close to figuring him out. I expect a large spike in his BABIP that's not necessarily flukish, or at least quite a few more walks. Either way, he's going to have to allow more baserunners, and adding in a substantial downgrade in San Diego's outfield defense with the loss of Cameron and Bradley and continued decline of Giles, I think Maddux winds up a little below league average. Young, because of the BABIP and that defensive downgrade will be dropping to near the Francis/Cook level.
With Los Angeles, I'm going more out on a limb. I think they can be that really good rotation if everybody remains healthy, but I think there's high potential for a catastrophic occurrence that takes out a starter or two completely fairly early in the season. I think Kuroda pans out, but McDonald doesn't, and then they have to look at Kershaw. Like Jimenez and Morales, I think he's a lot better than the projections would have people believe -and more ready to contribute by a season or two than Parker, I might add- but like them, he'll also probably be plagued by inconsistency. At any rate, I'm betting on the injury bug to hit the Dodgers, and with a lot of turbulence in LA's rotation, I think the merry-go-round will affect their performance.
And that brings me to Colorado. Like I say, I do think Jimenez and Morales wind up passing the projections' expectations for run prevention, both considerably. I know you remember that Jimenez's MLB performance last season was projected to be awful at best, so mediocre was a huge step forward for him. He's got the stuff to take another one, I really don't see him being much less than league average. The same can be said for Franklin, who's results at the MLB level last season are about as close to what we should expect as his projections are. Alright, before you jump on me for that statement, I looked, and the projections are a bit closer, but he's still going to outperform them by a substantial bit. I think the primary issue with both Jimenez and Morales will become that because of walks that they don't get as deep into ballgames as there RA's would suggest they should, which you note in the last paragraph. If I'm correct in how they perform otherwise, there will still be a lot of value in 160 innings of league average starting.
My point about the downgrade from Webb to Gonzalez, Francis to Morales etc.., was just to see what happens if catastrophe does occur and I think this is Arizona's only weakness. Morales is a bit more ready for MLB play than Kershaw, who is a lot more ready than Parker. The Diamondbacks aren't going to be able to get anything of value from Jarrod at the MLB level this season, while the Dodgers and Rockies are in better shape.
To say that Gonzalez is better than Morales points out the disconnect that scouts have with statisticians and why they think you're off your rocker. I don't go that far. I like Edgar a lot more than Petit and actually think both he and Morales will be about as valuable as each other this season with Morales moving well ahead in 2009.
by Rox Girl on Jan 17, 2008 6:05 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Excellent work
I have Gonzalez projected at 4.37 as a starter (which matches his last three years' performance almost perfectly) and Petit projected at 4.81 (which sucks), so I don't understand the above statement. Particularly in light of your following statement that you expect him to be about as valuable as Morales, who you are extremely high on.
I can see the argument for Jimenez beating my expectations, because a) he's got a non-insignificant MLB record to look at, and b) his projection is actually worse than his '07 combined line. But for Morales... my projection already has him chopping a third of a run off of where he was last year, FIP-wise. If you think he'll do a little better than that, fine. If you think he'll blow it away (say, beat it by at least half a run of ERC), you are way, way out on a limb.
On a related note, I've always thought that the "so-and-so has great stuff, which makes him a good candidate to obliterate his projection" line of thinking is very problematic. Let's take Kershaw as an example. He has incredible stuff, by all accounts. But there's just one problem: he struck out 163 guys in 122 innings. Why is that a problem, you ask? Because it means, in all likelihood, that he's already getting just about as much out of his stuff as he possibly can, or, if you prefer, that it's going to be damn near impossible for him to substantially improve his K rate. And that in turn means that, to the extent that Kershaw is a good candidate to blow away his projection, it's not because of his stuff; it's because he has horrendous control.
In other words, when we're looking for guys who seem likely to beat their projections, what we're really looking for is past results that are not commensurate with ability. For pitchers, that means - the following is a bit of an oversimplification, but not much - that we're looking for guys who fall into one of two categories. One, pitchers whose K rates are lower than you'd expect based on their stuff (Fausto Carmona, entering 2007, was a nice example), and two, pitchers who are likely to substantially improve their walk rates. I'll leave it for others to judge what this means for Jimenez and Morales, since I didn't get a chance to watch them very much; the logic itself is what I wanted to draw attention to here. "High ceiling" and "likely to exceed projections" are two very different things.
by Heltonfan on Jan 17, 2008 8:40 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
good points, and fair
Other than that, I think I understand what you're saying RE: ceiling vs. exceeding expectations, and it makes sense. I think one other aspect I look at though, is how their BABIP will translate. The theory is that pitchers with the best stuff, particularly those who also have high GB rates or quality movement to their pitches, aren't going to get hit as hard (opp. AVG/SLG) as MLE's suggest they will. Maybe I'm relying too heavily on the word of others with Kershaw, but I can almost guarantee that Morales will be better off than you say.
by Rox Girl on Jan 17, 2008 9:32 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
BABIP MLEs?
Interesting - I actually haven't come across this idea before. I've seen the problem addressed from the other side of the spectrum (pointing out that there are a bunch of guys who would get slaughtered on BIP if they were ever called up to the majors), but I haven't seen it suggested that there's any way to identify pitchers who will beat their BABIP MLEs.
At any rate, though, as it relates to Morales, his projected struggles are entirely due to his defense-independent stats; BABIP actually helps him quite a bit. That 5.06 number I gave previously is his ERC projection; if I run a straight FIP projection, it comes out to 5.27.
Also, as far as my projections go, keep in mind that the ERCs are neutralized to a league average of 4.00, whereas I presume that the THT numbers are non-neutralized ERA projections (correct me if I'm wrong). Which means that you can multiply the THT projections by 4/LgAv (where LgAv is the park-adjusted league average) to convert them to my terms. Doing that, using park-adjusted league averages from b-ref, Gonzalez's THT projection works out to a 3.86 ERC. Petit works out to 4.20. Morales, 4.81. The Morales number looks reasonable; the Gonzalez and Petit numbers, on the other hand, are utter nonsense.
by Heltonfan on Jan 17, 2008 11:10 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right about the THT ERA stats
For some reason, Morales' projections still seem too high to me. If it's the FIP that I'm going against, then I'm assuming that his projected HR and other extra base hits as well as the walks (not by much) are probably higher than what I'm thinking they'll be. I'm guessing the K rate you'd have would be about right, but additionally I must be thinking he'll have an unexpectedly high strand/kill rate (outside the defensive contribution) for his baserunners.
by Rox Girl on Jan 17, 2008 1:44 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Strand rate
Well, then you must be wrong. ;) Because what you're talking about is clutch performance, and expecting it in any significant degree from any player, let alone a guy with no history of it, is absurd.
I'm inclined to say that if Morales beats his projection, it will be because he does an outstanding job of keeping the ball in the park. Which is very possible, of course.
by Heltonfan on Jan 17, 2008 2:00 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
not entirely clutch...
by Rox Girl on Jan 17, 2008 2:27 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a done deal...
Good luck, J.J.!
by Since1993 on Jan 16, 2008 10:33 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Blogroll
News and Stuff:
Official Rockies Site
Rocky Mountain News
Denver Post
Inside the Rockies
Hardball in the Rockies (Thomas Harding's blog)
The Growing Colorado Rockies Blog Avalanche:
Diamond in the Rox
Denver Baseball Observer
Rox Head
Rockies Photo Blog
Inside the Humidor
Purple Rox Squad
Rockpile Rant
View from the Rockpile
I Live for This
Rocky Mountain Way
Rockies Review
Rockiescast
Other Colorado Rockies forums/discussions:
TheScoreBoards.com
Colorado Sports blogs:
Mile High Report (Denver Broncos)
BroncoTalk (Denver Broncos)
Mile High Hockey (Colorado Avalanche)
Denver Stiffs (Denver Nuggets)
The Ralphie Report (CU Buffaloes)
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
