CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Here's a complete list of pitchers with a better K rate than Pomeranz's 28.0% this year:
1 Jose Fernandez Marlins 12.91 2.60 4.97 0.59 36.6 % 7.4 % 29.2 % .202 1.02 .316 76.6 % 60 53 57 2.52 2.13 0.38 2.35 2.61
2 Clayton Kershaw Dodgers 10.79 0.67 16.11 0.45 32.9 % 2.0 % 30.8 % .184 0.73 .262 79.7 % 45 41 53 1.79 1.70 0.09 2.18 2.31
3 Max Scherzer Nationals 11.56 2.40 4.82 1.48 32.8 % 6.8 % 26.0 % .190 0.96 .241 84.7 % 73 88 78 3.03 3.61 -0.58 3.25 2.97
4 Stephen Strasburg Nationals 11.14 2.62 4.26 0.93 31.4 % 7.4 % 24.1 % .199 1.01 .270 83.5 % 63 72 73 2.62 2.97 -0.35 3.03 3.10
5 Noah Syndergaard Mets 10.90 1.53 7.11 0.51 30.4 % 4.3 % 26.1 % .239 1.08 .337 77.1 % 65 50 59 2.56 2.06 0.50 2.45 2.69
6 Madison Bumgarner Giants 10.13 2.22 4.56 0.83 28.5 % 6.3 % 22.3 % .195 0.96 .255 85.6 % 51 76 82 1.94 2.96 -1.02 3.40 3.30
7 Drew Pomeranz Padres 10.15 3.62 2.80 0.71 28.0 % 10.0 % 18.0 % .182 1.06 .240 80.8 % 63 77 88 2.47 3.18 -0.71 3.66 3.75
The Red Sox did just fine.
If Kemp isn't going to run anymore, I don't see much of a difference between him and <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=59265">Khris Davis</a></span> at this point.
Incredible piece, Sam. Best thing I've read in a long while.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=100595">David Dahl</a></span>... 440 at bats at AA 15 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=HR" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('HR'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">HR</span></a> / 30 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=SB" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('SB'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">SB</span></a>, .279. Hitting in coors.
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=100595">David Dahl</a></span> has to be inching his way onto this list at some point, no? Should be headed to AAA soon plus coors factor?
It's probaqbly Brock Holt because o/
<span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=55886">Henderson Alvarez</a></span> as NFL MVP? Really?
Yes, Bryant is not on the 40 man and as a result he is not in the MLBPA. But pointing out that the MLBPA has also negotiated benefits that apply equally to both veterans and young players is irrelevant to the point that they have negotiated significantly more benefits for veterans, including for starters, not giving away their rights for 7 years. <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=68520">Kris Bryant</a></span> may not be in the MLBPA, but Mikle Trout is, and he would be several hundred million dollars richer if the union hadn't anniliated his free market well before he was ever a member of the MLBPA.
I wholeheartedly agree. The labor laws in this country should not allow this but they do, and it's really unfair.
"If the player doesn't like it he should take it up with the MLBPA."
As a lawyer, I can tell you that the obvious problem with this statement is that Bryant can't take it up with MLBPA. He is not on the 40 man roster, and therefore he is not eligible to join the MLBPA. As a result, neither MLB nor the MLBPA could possibly care less about what he has to say. At the same time, minor league players that are not on the 40 man are bound by the CBA that the MLBPA and MLB have negotiated, despite the fact that they are not a part of either group. While they may seem ridiculously unfair, it is the law as upheld by the 2nd Circuit when the court ruled that Maurice Clarett was ineligible for the NFL draft because he was subject to age restrictions rules in place under the CBA between the NFL and NFLPA despite the fact that he was not eligible to become a member of the NFLPA. See Clarett v. National Football League.
While I hear you that Theo comes across as disingenuous and condescending (don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining, Theo), I think it's kind of hard to fault him for saying what he needs to say in order to win any grievance filing that Boras files. Ultimately, it's the system to blame here, for incentivizing the Cubs to deprive us fans of one of the most exciting prospects in a while and to actively harm their short terms prospects of winning in the process.
The funny thing is that I actually blame the union. If the union gave a crap about young players, this system would never exist, and the fans would in a position to actually see the best players play at the MLB level (gasp), rather than having to wait simply because the business of baseball has created a reason to hold prospects back. But instead, the MLBPA (like every other union) has prioritized the needs of its veteran members of its junior members, and in so doing they have given up any semblance of freedom that young plaers have in exchange for other concessions from the owners that benefit veteran players.
Admittedly, you do touch on the point in third bullet but I don't think you really hit on the groupthink concept that some have developed over the years that rushing a prospect ruins the prospect, especially when those same people define "rushed" as simply not following the traditional but completely arbitrary promotion schedule that MLB teams and fans alike have drawn up over the years (one year at AA, one year at AAA, etc.)
I enjoyed the article, Sam, but would like to point out one additional justification for why people view this as okay in Bryant's case and not okay in Trout's hypothethical case. That justification is the potential argument that Bryant would benefit more from a developmental standpoint by getting additional at play at the AAA level versus the
MLB one, and that he will turn into a better MLB player as a result. A person making this argument would likely point to Bryant's defense and his minor league K rates as weaknesses that he needs to work on in the minors. They would also likely point to the psychological aspect of the game and say Bryant might fall short of his ceiling if he is "rushed." (See http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9421798/carlos-gomez-aaron-hicks-risk-rushing-prospects-mlb)
Personally, I think that entire argument is hot garbage and that the concept of prospects being rushed is greatly exaggerated. In my view, as long as they are relatively close, most players who have it in them to be quality MLB players (see e.g., <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Jose+Fernandez">Jose Fernandez</a></span>) benefit more from the increased challenge of aggressive promotion than from languishing away in the minors while feasting on inferior talent, and potentially even developing bad habits because they aren't being forcing to make adjustments. Conversely, the players who are often cited as falling short of their potential because they were "rushed" (e.g., <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=57967">Aaron Hicks</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Jesus+Montero">Jesus Montero</a></span>, <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=57478">Mike Moustakas</a></span>) were never going to pan out anyway.
But I do think it's necessary to address the point, nonetheless, particuarly given that this argument is what the Cubs are (disingenuously) citing as their reasoning behind the Bryant decision.
Not saying you are doing this, Ben, but it drives me insane when people say things like "Where's he going to play? They already have their infield locked up for x years." Prospects - even top 10 overall prospects like Bogaerts and Moncada - have a huge (i.e, >50%) bust rate. To assume that the Red Sox , Cubs, or any other team have their infield locked down for 5 years because they have elite prospects at any position is incredibly foolish.
I think it's safe to assume this is false. Bonds only got 37 out of the possible 40 votes even after the limit was lifted. There is literally no coherent argument unrelated to PEDs for why he shouldn't be inducted, and therefore it is pretty clear that the reason he was left off those 3 ballots (Arthur, Cromer, and Carlton) is related to PEDs.
Great work as always, Sam.
In retrospect, I've come to expect that the Red Sox had some information regarding Nomar's injury status that the rest of us did not. Given his precipitous decline, as well as his infamous SI cover, and his injury history, I think it's pretty likely he was on steroids; that the team knew it; and that they dealt him because they were worried that his injuries would worsen with the players under greater PED scrutiny.
Enjoyed this one. Thanks, Sam.
The problem you are describing (young people whose income stream is insufficient to cover living expenses) extends far beyond baseball. Given how quickly the cost of education has increased without an accompanying increase in starting salaries, a very large portion of recent college graduates are in the same position, unable to cover living expenses after deducting the cost of their student loans. It's a huge problem for our economy moving forward.
"First of all, actual relievers tend to (although don’t always) work later in games and thus don’t face as many starting position players as the starters do in what are usually early-game relief appearances. This can help the relievers, but some years, the position player reserves picked by the players and manager are better than the fans’ selections."
I'd also note that because they tend to pitch later, relievers are more likely to face platoons.
One important factor here: Official electronic (FAT) times are not equivalent to unofficial hand times. In fact, you need to add ~0.24 seconds to a hand timed 100m dash to estimate the FAT time. All of Hamilton's times are hand timed. All of Bolt's are FAT.
I think Roy Halladay offers a cautionary tale on CC. The same warning signs starting to crop up (extremely high usage for years coupled with age and steep velocity loss/K% drop).
Craig mentioned that Sabathia's rates last year were the same as they were in 2010. That's not entirely true if you look at K%, which is a better statistic than K/9 (per batter metric > per inning metric). His K% last year was the worst of his career by a decent margin. He also outperformed his FIP and his xFIP by a significant margin in 2010, which isn't something he's done consistently over his career, so I'm not sure you can count on it happening again.
I'd expect ~ a 3.90 ERA, but that velocity drop is fairly alarming, and I'd prefer to let someone else take the plunge if I can help it.
That Angels list is jarring. They have Mike Trout and they're still bottom five. I guess that's what happens when your #2 guy U25 is neither an MLB level player nor a top 101 prospect.
Trading Melancon away for Hanrahan also turned out poorly. They need to stop trying to trade for proven closers. Both Bailey and Hanrahan had some pretty obvious bust potential, and they went ahead with those deals anyway. Thank god Uehara has performed so brilliantly. Perhaps he'll save them from themselves for the time being.
Further, McCutchen is a lot closer to Cargo than he is to Trout.
Bump Cargo that is
I think you either need to bump up to tier 1 or drop McCutchen down to tier 2. I have McCutchen over Cargo but there isn't much separation there, particularly considering that Cargo substantially better than on a per game basis. In any case, I don't think anyone can argue that there is more separation between McCutchen and Cargo than there is between Cargo and Pence
Here I was all ready to complain about this being a thinly-veiled excuse to charge more for the same content (by requiring the super premium subscription to access certain content that is currently available to those with a regular premium subscription). But that's clearly not what's going on here, as it seems you're just seeking to expand sales for the annual/handbook by indirectly offering a discount on that content to premium subscribers. Thanks guys.
I love how the defense comments get progressively snarkier each year as he keeps winning gold gloves.
I agree on Aramis. Extremely undervalued this year. I'm hoping he stays that way.
I think the rationale on not including him is that (1) he's somewhat blocked, (2) he missed AAA development time last year, and (3) he still hasn't been cleared to run at full speed.
He certainly could start with the big league team but the safe bet is that he won't. Barring an injury to Adams or one of the OF, I expect him to rake in the PCL and get the call after the super 2 deadline. At that point, I suppose he would displace Bourjos/Jay, or Adams if he gets exposed as a full-time player.
Did you read the key? Squares = Cleveland batters; Triangles = Houston batters
I really enjoyed this article, Sam. You had me laughing out loud more than once.
Call me crazy but I think Abreu is wayyy too low on here. I know there are questions about his hit tool but nobody questions the power and he's one of what, 5-7 guys in this entire draft that will start the year in the majors? If we're drafting for 2014 only, he's #1 on the entire list and Bogaerts is probably the only other realistic consideration. Given that all things equal, immediate value > future value, it seems really odd he would drop all the way to #33.
Post-2014 valuation is a crucial factor in determining what kind of multi-year contract a player will command, whereas this exercise focused exclusively on 2014 production.
This poll concerned 2014 expectations only.
Yu Darvish posted a 3.90 ERA, 90 ERA-, 3.52 xFIP with 190 IP in his first professional season. Given that Darvish's scouting reports blow away anything I've ever heard about Tanaka, I think that's on high end of Tanaka's projections this year.
Meanwhile, Bailey is coming off a 3.49 ERA, 92 ERA-, 3.34 xFIP season and has thrown thrown 200 innings during each of the last two seasons.
I'm pretty surprised by the Bailey/Tanaka results. I think it's Bailey by a decent margin both in terms of certainty and potential and that those who choose Tanaka are suffering from the same "shiny new toy" syndrome that plagues most fantasy drafts.
One thing that I find interesting about this system is that in baseball, both managers can run out onto the field to argue plays in order to give others a chance to view the replay and let them know whether to challenge the play. As a result, both teams have the option to stop the game without actually challenging. That's not the case in the NFL, where the offense alone controls the pace of the game (and even the offense is constrained by the playclock), and so I wonder whether how frequently that strategy will be employed. I suspect that it will result in longer delays than MLB expects.
I don't deny that Rendon has the potential to outproduce Altuve by a full tier, but I think it's crazy to actually project him to do so. I certainly don't think that's a high probability outcome. I will be interested to see Rendon's PECOTA projections but I suspect that you're essentially banking on him producing at the level of his 70 or 80 degree projection.
I'm confused by the Altuve ranking. As a 23 year old last year, Altuve outproduced every single player in the three star tier aside from Carpenter, and I see nothing in his 2013 stat line that he can't repeat. Anthony Rendon is ranked a full tier ahead of Altuve despite (a) having proven nothing at the ML level, (b) having substantial injury risk, (c) being only 1 month younger than Altuve, and (d) the fact that Altuve will outproduce him by AT LEAST 25 SB even under the most optimistic Rendon projection. Huh? Even if Rendon shows substantial improvement in his contact rate, he's still unlikely to surpass Altuve's .288 projection from Steamer. They should in the same tier, at the very least. Frankly, I would draft Altuve higher.
Love trolling people with ridiculous offers after they offer me lousy trades.
Nice piece. I agree that Santana's value is probably lower in dynasty than many think, due to the likelihood of him losing eligibility down the line. I'm not sure that many recognize that yet though, and so I think I'm going to milk one more year out of Santana and then sell him before his perceived value really starts to take a hit. It's a tough balance no doubt, but it's kind of a Rays/Price situation, where you want to get top value from a guy before it's too late.
Very nice Doug. I always enjoy your articles, and I've learned a lot from them.
I was just thinking, this might be difficult if you don't have access to sufficient video, but when Jason Parks releases his top 101, would you consider posting an article analyzing the mechanical aspects of the deliveries of the top, say, 10 pitching prospects? I think that would generate a ton of traffic.
2014 Donaldson: Martin Perez
2014 Kazmir: Mulder
2014 Liriano: Melky Cabrera
2014 Harvey: Archer/Gray
2014 Gregg: Broxton
2014 Scherzer: Matt Moore
2014 Sale: Stanton
2014 Vmart: Beachy
2014 Byrd: Pierzynski
2014 BJ Upton: Papelbon
Scratch that, it was over 8 years ago.
Sam is absolutely nuts. The last time Mulder pitched a full season (2005), his K rate was 12.8% (4.87 k/9). And that was six years ago! There is a zero percent chance his ERA would be below 5 if he pitched a full season now.
Good overall but the "what are you drinking" bit was a bit forced and unoriginal.
Game theory isn't a silly line of thinking.
The Cubs. That's too much.
That first paragraph was at least mildly arousing.
Sounds like you missed the point of the article.
And I don't mean to imply that it should have been decided the other way for that reason either. Regardless of whether obstruction is called, there is an enormous swing in win probability based on whether the umpire makes that call. The unfortunate part is that the game essentially turns on which of two perfectly defensible interpretations the umpire makes there.
I agree with everything you wrote here, Sam. I'm a sox fan, but I'm not going to argue that the call was necessarily wrong. The bottom line, I think, is that it simply sucks to have such an important game decided by such a debatable judgment call.
Yes, and we're also denying that the batter vs. pitcher matchup statistics that you are citing mean anything.
The other previews included the PECOTA win percentages. Care to share this one?
The logic behind Myth #1 is incorrect because it assumes that only the two proposed outcomes are possible. There are, in fact two other possibilities:
Bad 2013 + Good Outlook = No Firings
Good 2013 + Good Outlook = No Firings
Putting these four equations together, the firings only occur when the bad 2013 and the horrible outlook intersect. Therefore, the firings are the result of both poor current results and a poor future outlook.
"Editor and chief" = Editor-in-chief
Sorry, I had to. I still love you Jason.
Just submitted my quiz.
Scratch that, I meant to type that on next episode, re: the Berman clip
Ugh. Worst intro clip ever.
I read this article while shaving my upper lip with a straight edge and listening to Hall and Oates on repeat.
The teams that dump early normally suck, so they have less current talent to trade and end up with worse players.
What's up with the cheap shots on my city, bros?
Nice. I'm going to both the conference and the afterparty.
Solid article. This is exactly why I subscribe to BP.
Fair enough. In that case, there are a ton of bars near Fenway that would probably work. Landsdowne Street, Kenmore Square, etc.