UNCBlue012
Well-known member
It does! Agreed!
2018 Offseason And Targets
- Thread starter clvclv
- Start date
- Status
It does! Agreed!
JohnAdcox
Brian Jordan's New BFF
The "not that far from league average" comment referred to "the 11th-to-15th best starting pitchers in the organization." Maybe the Braves will instead use some of the top ten starters?
Southcack77
Well-known member
He had a pretty modest improvement in launch angle (4.7 to 6.2). Guess that's progress, but still near the bottom of the stack. But you do see slight movement in FB, GB, LD, etc. Not enough to explain the surge in results.
Mainly he just hit the ball a lot harder. Exit velocity went from 88 to 91.5. Hard hit from 31% to 48%.
HR/FB spiked to 23.5%.
The Brewers has terrible SPs and gave the Dodgers all they could handle in the NLCS.
The Mets had arguably the best SPs in the game and didn’t sniff the playoffs.
The “we need a front line pitcher to lead us” cliche is beyond ignorant. All you need to do is consider the intelligence of the folks spouting that nonsense.
The Mets had arguably the best SPs in the game and didn’t sniff the playoffs.
The “we need a front line pitcher to lead us” cliche is beyond ignorant. All you need to do is consider the intelligence of the folks spouting that nonsense.
CrazyTrain
Well-known member
What's your definition of "league average" for fWAR? Last year, among pitchers who had over 100 IPs, the average fWAR was 2.16. I see two starters on the roster who should beat that next year.
Last edited:
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
Did you read the article? The article was claiming that our 11-15 SPs are projected to produce not too far from league average, not the whole staff. Do I think we can survive when we have TWELVE starting pitchers who ZiPS projects to produce over 1 WAR, with 9 of those pitchers being top or former top prospects with less that 2 years of experience, yeah I think we'll be just fine. Let's say that just 1 of those 9 pitchers exceeds their projections, busts out, and produces just 3 fWAR for us this year. If all the other projections were the same that'd leave us with a starting 5 producing:
3 fWAR
2.9 fWAR
2.5 fWAR
2.0 fWAR
2.0 fWAR
With 5 pitchers behind them projecting for: 1.9, 1.6, 1.4, 1.4, and 1.3
I see no issue with rolling into 2019 with this rotation. It has a pretty large window of potential outcomes relative to the rest of the league, but we have the depth, youth, and upside to think that we'll end up with a top ~10 staff with no additions at all. If you took the top 7 pitchers and added up these WAR projections, we'd have ended up with the 4th best rotation in baseball last year by fWAR. All it would take to hit that number is for one of Touissaint/Soroka/Newcomb/Fried/Wilson/Wright/Gohara/Allard to become a 3 win pitcher. That, plus the rest of the rotation holding serve on their projections.
Also, remember when you said that Gausman is a bottom of the rotation pitcher with bad control? Yeah, he's projected for 2.9 wins with a 2.59 BB/9 next year.
CrazyTrain
Well-known member
Interesting, I was just throwing that out there, didn't check his batted ball stats so thank you for that. Makes him a bit hard to project long term.
If this is the extent of your knowledge about stats I would suggest sitting out the discussions when the adults are talking.
Here’s a hint: look at rate stats like ERA-
Haha he conveniently didn’t bother to reply when that little factoid was pointed out.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
I don't get why we are trying to attach Greinke to Peralta anyway. Peralta is not going to be THAT expensive in trade. We should be able to acquire him for no more than ~40 million in surplus value. Even that would be on the more expensive side for him.
Best you just sit out these discussions when the adults are talking rather than prove the extent of your ignorance.
Southcack77
Well-known member
That's been my point. It's not necessary to take on Greinke.
I'm forced to conclude that these folks really like Greinke even with that big salary number. Or that they really like whatever prospect it is they think they are saving.
CrazyTrain
Well-known member
I think the only pitchers with a chance to get a 3+ WAR are Folty and Gausman (assuming his NL stats are really who he is now). Say Folty comes close to repeating lats year and gets 3.5 WAR, which the chances of that happening are fairly equal with one of the other guys (looking at Newk) underperforming, so those numbers likely rise/fall proportionately. If you add up our ZIPs on the top 6 guys, that's 12.9 WAR, which is what the Cubs got last year at 19th best in the league. Even adding another .5, that only gets us to 17th.
Hell, even with your numbers that has us at 14.3, that puts as 16th. The lowest playoff team was Oakland at 17, with Atlanta second at 13.
Three of the final 4 teams were in the top 4 in pitching fWAR, with the "bullpenning" Brewers as the 4th...
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Right... I just don't have much confidence in Duvall and think Peralta will be priced higher than a platoon player
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
So you don't think 7 top 100 pitching prospects all hitting MLB-readiness at the same time and all of whom gained mlb experience (some got playoff experience) even have a chance at reaching 3 fWAR next year? Mike Soroka was worth 0.6 WAR in 5 starts last year. Touki was worth 0.4 in 5 starts. Fried was worth 0.4 in 5 starts (9 relief appearances as well). In 2017 Luiz Gohara was worth 1 WAR in 5 starts. We have no fewer than 5 other guys behind them with the pedigree for success at the MLB level.
You don't think its even possible for one of those guys to make the necessary progression to hit 3 WAR next year? Some of these guys are going to be making 25-30+ starts for us next year. Even if they don't get better, their WAR numbers from last year get awfully close to 3 when you extrapolate them out over 30+ starts.
Not particularly worried about pairing Peralta or Pederson if you can get one of them with Duvall at this point, since you could use those days to play Camargo in LF if Duvall doesn't bounce back somewhat out of the gate - play Riley exclusively in LF for the first month of the season and he ought to be ready to come up in mid-May and you can DFA Duvall at that point.
CrazyTrain
Well-known member
So.... now ZiPs and I are both wrong?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
My trade idea has more to do with the Dbacks being potentially eager to attach Greinke in such a trade and how we could take advantage of that.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
You need to work on your filtering. Among Starting Pitchers (the subject we're talking about), 14.3 fWAR would have put us tied with the Cardinals and Nationals for 10th in the MLB. And that is only if you take the "top 6"... The rankings would include anyone making a start for us. If you took our top 7 (or just assume that, in aggregate, our pitchers outside our top 5 would collectively produce 3.5 WAR) then that would put us at 15.9 WAR in my hypothetical. That would put us ranked 6th in the MLB last year.
Really, these are just silly hypotheticals though. I'm just using them to illustrate that it would take anything unusual for us to have a top 10 pitching staff next year with the current group of pitchers that we have. We have such tremendous youth and depth. You're making it sound farfetched that one of our young guys could exceed his projections and become a 3 win pitcher. I think its far more realistic than you think.
BeanieAntics
Arbitration Eligible
Wait, what exactly do you think ZiPs is trying to do when it comes to younger players and prospects? ZiPs is just taking trends from a player's past performance and using other variables like aging/development trends to spit out what the most likely outcome is for each individual player. That doesn't mean that deviations don't exist, ESPECIALLY with younger players/prospects. If 1-2 WAR over a full season is the 50th percentile outcome for nine of our pitcher's individually, the notion that any single one of them could hit their 80th or 90th percentile outcome isn't just realistic, an argument could be made that its likely.
- Status