The Cardinals recently extended pitcher Adam Wainwright to a 5-year, $97.5 million deal. Wainwright will finish his previous deal and get paid $12 million to pitch in 2013. Then his new deal begins in 2014. He'll get paid exactly $19.5 million each year from 2014 to 2018.
My first reaction to the deal was understandably positive. Not only do I like Adam Wainwright's ability to throw a baseball, but I expected a $100+ million deal. The deal will have Wainwright pitching with the Cardinals until he's at least 37-years-old.
My next reaction was not really negative so much as I had figured in my head that he wasn't going to be worth the money, strictly from a performance standpoint. I should say that the most likely scenario was that he wouldn't be worth the money. The odds that he performed up to or exceeding the value of his contract was less likely, by a relatively significant margin, than if he pitched below his value.
I fully accept this was done in my head. This post is putting actual, quantitive analysis to test this reaction. Really, this is almost exactly like Yadier Molina's deal except there are two massive differences. The first is that Molina is a catcher, so he doesn't carry the added weight of pitcher injuries with him (and the Cardinals are barren at catcher in the farm). The second is that pitching is largely quantifiable, whereas catcher defense is still an inexact science.
Molina had a year remaining when he signed an extension just like Wainwright. Both players were/are right on the cusp of being worth it/being a clear overpay (I don't think anybody could seriously argue either was a underpay for instance). Both extend players who have been Cardinals their entire career into possibly lifetime contracts.
Then, Molina's 2012 happened, and his contract looked like a steal. Make no mistake - at the time of the deal, the contract was questioned by experts and rightfully so. His 2012 set the projections for the rest of the deal. And that's exactly what will happen with Wainwright. How he performs in 2013 is vital to the rest of the deal.
Explaining FIP
I'll use a short amount of this post to explain fielding independent pitching (FIP). The stat is created to look like ERA, so you know what a good FIP and a bad FIP is. It's important to note that FIP is a good stat to grade the individual performance of a pitcher, not grade the results of the pitcher.
FIP correlates better year-to-year for pitcher's performance than ERA does. It grades a pitcher's strikeouts, walks, and home runs allowed (and HBPs). It's very easy to calculate so long as you have a calculator by your side.
(13*HRs)+(3*[BBs+HBPs)-(2*Ks)/IP+constant (Assume it's 3.2 if you don't know)
So Adam Wainwright allowed 15 homers, 52 walks, hit 6 batters, and struck out 184 batters in 198.2 IP. So using a calculator, you get an FIP of:
(13*15)+(3*[52+6])-(2*184)/198.2 + 3.2 = 3.21
His actual FIP was 3.10, so I guess the constant was significantly lower than 3.2 in 2012. Either way, he was expected to get an ERA of 3.10 and instead had an ERA of 3.94 through some combination of luck, bad fielding, unlucky timing, or bad scoring (score something that should be an error as hit thus raising ERA).
If that didn't explain it well enough, watch this short and informative tutorial on FIP - Link (It's actually very good, so I recommend this one minute video anyway)
Also, I'll be using the stat BABIP in this post. For those who are confused what BABIP is - BABIP = batting average on balls in play - It's assumed pitchers can't control it, unless there's sample evidence to contrary - .290-.310 is neutral luck - Anything below, pitcher is getting "lucky," anything above, the pitcher is getting "unlucky" - It could be due to talent or performance, but usually the sample size is small enough to assume the pitcher has no control.
2012
Now that I have explained FIP, since most of the rest of this analysis will be based on that stat, let's continue by looking at his 2012. FIP helps Wainwright's case tremendously so hopefully I won't get any complaints that I'm using this stat. (If you use ERA, you'd have a tough sell convincing anyone he is worth this contract)
The good news is that Wainwright was basically his old self in 2012. It wasn't his best year, but it was almost the exact same as his 2009 season, except with a much lower ERA in '09. I'm usually not one who likes to draw conclusions by splitting the season into the 1st half and the 2nd half, but since he was recovering from Tommy John surgery, it might actually make for some useful analysis. So here are his stats over the whole season, his 1st half, and his 2nd half:
2012: 32 GS, 198.2 IP, 8.34 K/9, 2.36 BB/9, 0.68 HR/9, .315 BABIP, 3.94 ERA, 3.10 FIP, 4.0 WAR
1st half: 17 GS, 102.2 IP, 8.59 K/9, 2.54 BB/9, 0.88 HR/9, .333 BABIP, 4.56 ERA, 3.36 FIP
2nd half: 15 GS, 96 IP, 8.06 K/9, 2.16 BB/9, 0.47 HR/9, .296 BABIP, 3.28 ERA, 2.82 FIP
Well, there's a clear difference here. He pitched slightly more innings per start in the 2nd half. Extrapolate his 6.4 IP/GS, and he pitches 205 innings the entire season. Not a big difference, but it could matter in a close race. His slight decrease in strikeouts is off-set by his decrease in walks, so I'm going to say that didn't change.
He improved on preventing homers in the second by a significant margin and his BABIP also dropped. It's almost impossible to say if he actually improved or his luck simply got better though. Anecdotally, it seems as if part of the reason Wainwright's home run rate was so high early on was because he was missing spots and keeping the ball up. In other words, it was not all luck and partially Wainwright's fault.
Something that is keeping me very, very positive is that it seems that Wainwright followed what would be a typical TJ recovery (I'm guessing the following). He started off slow, got better each month, and in the last month, had his second worst month of the year as his stamina wasn't quite as high as it used to be. This makes sense right? Get better every month and then you're worn down by the end of the year.
Overall, I'm not convinced unfortunately that these stats provide a substantial enough difference for me to change his future projections. I think his 2012 stats provide a fair estimate on which to project the rest of his contract.
2013 Projections
Fangraphs lists four projection systems on its player profiles. There's Steamer, Bill James, zIPS, and the fan-inserted projections. I'm going to throw out the fan-inserted projection, because usually the people who take the time to fill one out are fans of the team the player is on so they are drastically optimistic. They are inherently biased and thus their projections are invalid to a fair projection.
The best way to use a projection is to average out all three. On their own, the projection systems hit and miss, but together they provide the most accurate of any possible projection. It's of course important to note that projections are... projections. But, it's pretty much the only way to rationally analyze a contract. These are based purely on numbers. They don't hold any biases about a particular player (except perhaps favoring a certain stat - which is why we average out all three).
There is one thing I will change about the projections though and this is probably considered a cardinal sin among advanced stat experts. I will change a pitcher's innings pitched projection. Well, actually I don't usually, but I'm going to with Wainwright. Innings pitched just analyzes the past and sees their potential in injury based on their past injuries.
I feel comfortably enough that Wainwright is back from TJ surgery fully to assume he will pitch more than 192 IP. I'm going to place his projected IP at 205 innings, his pace in the 2nd half of 2012. Otherwise, here's the average of the three projection systems for Wainwright's 2013 season:
Projected 2013: 205 IP, 7.89 K/9, 2.37 BB/9, 0.68 HR/9, .304 BABIP, 3.39 ERA, 3.13 FIP, 5.0 WAR
2014-2018
I don't have the necessary tools to try and give the numbers for what Wainwright's 2014-18 numbers will be, but I will use the rule of thumb where a player declines 0.5 each successive year he gets older.
Since Wainwright is currently 31-years-old and will be 32 by the beginning of the contract, it's safe to assume he'll be entering his decline years. A player's prime is considered 28-32 and Wainwright will just be entering his decline years at the beginning of this contract.
I'm going to grade this two ways. Since Wainwright turns 33-years-old in the middle of the contract, I'll do a projection where he achieves a decline starting in 2014 and a projection where he begins declining in 2015. (Though I'm fairly certain that decline in 2014 would be the correct way to go.)
Decline in 2014
2014: 4.5 WAR
2015: 4.0 WAR
2016: 3.5 WAR
2017: 3.0 WAR
2018: 2.5 WAR
Total WAR: 17.5 WAR
Decline in 2015
2014: 5.0 WAR
2015: 4.5 WAR
2016: 4.0 WAR
2017: 3.5 WAR
2018: 3.0 WAR
Total WAR: 20 WAR
(Part of decline takes in injury risk. Some of it is also due to age)
Putting a Value to the Contract
I'm not sure what the value of a win is in the 2012-2013 off-season, but for purposes of simplicity, I'm putting the value at $5.0 million per win. (If I'm wrong, it's higher. I'm making conservative guess so as to not accidentally mis-value contract too highly)
Since Wainwright's 2013 season is not a part of the contract, it will not be valued. You could argue he might have a better season with the weight of a contract off his shoulders, but you could also argue he'd have a better year in a contract year. So overall, I won't value his 2013 at all since it has nothing to do with the extension.
I'm also not assuming inflation so no matter the price, you could assume contracts will rise (more money for a win) and thus Wainwright's deal will look better. But I won't assume this for a fairer analysis.
Decline in '14 - $87.5
Decline in '15 - $100
Keep in mind the former projection is the one you should be going by. I just did the latter for argument's sake. Still, even using the former, this is very pleasing to me. Wainwright is clearly one of those players that should not just be valued by his on-the-field performance.
Wainwright won't raise ticket prices, or bring more people to games, but he will do intangible things that I can't possibly put a value on. He's one of the few players where I would actually accept the intangible argument.
His clubhouse antics (to keep team loose), his leadership, and his winning smile (this is only partially a joke; I mean have you seen his smile?). He is the perfect embodiment of what the Cardinals organization thinks it is. So we're paying roughly $2 million per year for stuff that doesn't include his performance. I can accept that. That's about 0.4 WAR.
What does this mean
So I have valued Wainwright's contract as fairly priced. There is one problem with this. The years. You can't pay pitchers fairly priced deals over long periods of time. They tend to get hurt. Without injury, this is a fair deal.
But teams shouldn't get a pass when they sign a high-profile free agent (essentially what Wainwright was even if he didn't make it to FA) and he gets hurt. Pitchers get hurt. Committing to them for long periods of time is generally not a smart move.
Then there's the fact that the Cardinals are stacked at pitching for the next few years. They have Lance Lynn, Jaime Garcia, and Shelby Miller pitching in 2013 and they will be a Cardinal until 2017. (Unless Cardinals decline club option for Garcia, which could happen). Michael Wacha is close. Trevor Rosenthal will get a chance to be a starter.
The flip side of the coin is that it gives the Cardinals more flexibility in their rotation. Westbrook is almost definitely gone after this year with the Wainwright signing. Remember he had an option for 2014? We can reject Garcia's option if we deem his salary too high and our young prospects are getting too good to ignore.
It also allows us to not rely on prospects, notorious for their high risk/high reward. Miller hasn't played a full season in the MLB yet. While I strongly suspect good things of him, you never know. One of the prospects I mentioned, in all likelihood, will flame out, get injured, or just start sucking. That's kind of how pitching prospects work. Compile as many as you can and just hope some pan out.
Assuming Miller does well, the Cardinals only have one rotation spot left for Wacha, Rosenthal, and I guess Kelly, who you can just put in the bullpen for the rest of his Cardinal life now. On the other side of the coin, we have trade bait to improve a failing position (such as middle infield).
I'm just trying to analyze this from every angle. I've seen the argument that Wainwright is unnecessary due to pitching prospects who can replace him. I don't buy that argument though. Pitching prospects are too unreliable to... well rely on and the flexibility it gives the Cardinals could sustain them through many injuries to the rotation without much of a drop in quality. I think the good parts of blocking prospects essentially levels out the bad parts of blocking prospects.
Final Thoughts
To sum up, Wainwright's deal is a fair one in my eyes. The track record of pitchers with long deals is not encouraging. (Look at Johan Santana for example; he had no injury history before he signed deal)
Take this for what it's worth, but if you look at the overall price of the rotation, it doesn't change at all. Wainwright's salary increases $7.5 million ($12 to $19.5), but the Cardinals ditch Westbrook's $9.75. The $2 million difference is completed with Jaime Garcia's raise. And since the Cardinals are full of prospects, they won't seek any free agents and will be paying league minimum to Westbrook's replacement, who will also probably be better than Westbrook. This somehow makes me feel better about the deal.
(Further down the line, however, Garcia continues to get a raise and Lynn will enter arbitration and get a raise himself - I don't think Lynn will qualify for Super Two and we get him cheap for 2014 too though)
I'm about as neutral on this contract as you could be. However, whenever I get to watch Wainwright pitch (or do anything in the clubhouse), I'm sure I'll be very happy it happened.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Prospects to watch in 2013
The Cardinals have the best farm system in all of baseball as judged by most experts. Now, there are the headliners that everyone knows (Oscar Taveras, Shelby Miller) and then there are the lesser known prospects (Greg Garcia, John Gast). The Cardinals' current roster, mostly of homegrown talent, is comprised of players who were lesser known prospects, so it's probably a good idea to know those guys too.
I'm going to try and hit all the prospects whose numbers I will be following, including the big name prospects. I'm excluding Trevor Rosenthal and Shelby Miller since following them will not be hard. I expect them in the majors the whole year. This list will be players who will be playing in the minors most of the year.
I'll list their 2012 numbers - all of these players will have great 2012 numbers or a specific stat that is very encouraging - and then what I will look for in 2013 - usually involving them improving in an area or at least maintaining their numbers. I am not a scout so there will be no talk of tools.
Pitchers to watch
Carlos Martinez
2012 - A+ Stats: 33 IP, 9.27 K/9, 2.73 BB/9, 3.00 ERA, .319 BABIP against; AA Stats: 71.1 IP, 7.32 K/9, 2.78 BB/9, 2.90 ERA, .276 BABIP against
I don't think the Cardinals planned for the 21-year-old* pitching prospect to pitch in AA last year. He more or less forced their hand by dominating the competition in A+. He struck out over a batter per inning while walking less than league average - all this as a 20-year-old.
On the surface, his AA doesn't ring any bells. His ERA actually drops. However, I'd start him in AA this season. His strikeout rate lowered significantly without a drop in the walk rate to go with it. I'm worried he's not ready for AAA and I'd like to see him raise that K rate before they promote him. Plus, the Cardinals have time to wait for him with Miller and Wacha close.
What to look for in 2013 - Improves his K rate back to A+ levels in AA
ETA - 2014
*The age I call the player is whatever their age is on April 1.
Michael Wacha
2012 Stats: 3 levels combined - 21 IP, 17.1 K/9, 1.71 BB/9, 0.86 ERA, .233 BABIP against
Those 2012 stats look like a typo. Something's wrong with them right? There's no way he actually struck out almost two batters an inning while barely walking anybody. As a pitcher most scouts described as a fast riser, yet he who would top out as a #3 starter, that is incredibly astounding. I don't really care if people still say he's at best a #3 starter, because I disagree with them. Those stats aren't #3 starter.
There's a single thing that causes some caution. He hasn't pitched as a starter yet. With those stats, that is a minor concern and I have little worry the transition will be smooth. Also, 21 innings isn't a huge sample size. His spring training stats somewhat alleviate the concern as he dominated ST similar to how he dominated the minors.
What to look for in 2013: Pitching successfully as a starter in AAA - If he is half as good as a starter as he was last year, I like his future. (Literally chop his K rate in half and double his BB rate, and he's still a great prospect)
ETA - 2014
Seth Maness
2012 Stats: A+ - 45 IP, 5.67 K/9, 0.20 BB/9, 2.15 ERA, .282 BABIP against; AA - 123.2 IP, 6.04 K/9, 0.65 BB/9, 3.27 ERA, .278 BABIP against
Congratulations to the 10 players who managed to draw a walk against Maness. Yes, that is how many players he walked in the entire 2012 season. That's 168.2 IP for the record. That's pretty much the only stat that's keeping this guy as a prospect. It's a hugely important stat as keeping hitters off base is the objective of baseball, but it's the only stat.
He barely saw a decline when he went to AA. His K rate rose, but that was slightly off-set when his BB rate also rose. He's definitely a pitcher to follow purely to see if he's going to be successful. He has managed a career out of walking almost literally no one. He doesn't strike out many people, he doesn't prevent home runs at a good rate, and hitters have a reasonably good average against him. But he does not give hitters a free pass. They have to earn it with their bat.
What to look for in 2013 - I'd like to see an increase in K rate, though at least maintaining his 2012 stats would make an MLB future possible.
ETA - 2014
Maikel Cleto
2012 Stats: AAA: 53.2 IP, 11.07 K/9, 3.69 BB/9, 5.37 ERA, .346 BABIP against; MLB - 9 IP, 15.0 K/9, 2.0 B/9, 7.00 ERA, .474 BABIP against
Well, here's a puzzle. He's on here for two reasons despite his bad ERAs: his K/9 is phenomenal and his high BABIP**. He's also only 23-years-old. Advanced stats like him a lot. A lot. He walks batters more than the average pitcher, but it's not that bad when you consider how many hitters he strikes out.
He was pretty unlucky in 2012. A .346 BABIP could be the fault of the pitcher, however Cleto had a .285 BABIP in AAA last year. It's probably random. Also, most fans remember Cleto, because he either struck out the guy or gave up a homer. He doesn't have a homer problem. He had a 0.67 HR/9 in AAA, which is below average. In the majors, 40% of the fly balls given up by Cleto became a home run. The league average HR/FB is 11.2%. Unless you think Cleto has some kind of ability to allow home runs at a historic rate, that will also go down.
Think about it: a pitcher with a 15/2 K/BB ratio in 9 innings is usually an elite pitcher. In 9 innings, Cleto allowed 4 homers when normal fly ball luck indicates he'd allow just a single home run. Look for his numbers to improve.
What to look for in 2013: Really, just look for his ERA to drop significantly; his K/BB and HR rates all indicate what should have been a 3.16 ERA. (That was his FIP)
ETA: mid-2013
**BABIP = batting average on balls in play - It's assumed pitchers can't control it, unless there's sample evidence to contrary - .290-.310 is neutral luck - Anything below, pitcher is getting "lucky," anything above, the pitcher is getting "unlucky" - It could be due to talent, but usually the sample size is small enough to assume the pitcher has no control.
**BABIP = batting average on balls in play - It's assumed pitchers can't control it, unless there's sample evidence to contrary - .290-.310 is neutral luck - Anything below, pitcher is getting "lucky," anything above, the pitcher is getting "unlucky" - It could be due to talent, but usually the sample size is small enough to assume the pitcher has no control.
Danny Miranda
2012 Stats: A: 52.2 IP, 8.20 K/9, 2.73 BB/9, 3.25 ERA, .282 BABIP against; A+ - 12.2 IP, 9.24 K/9, 2.13 BB/9, 4.26 ERA
Miranda is an intriguing player, because he's a left-handed pitching prospect who can strike out batters at a good rate. He's 22-years-old so he's following the path of the MLB where he'll be 25-years-old if he ever gets to there, so that makes him a whole lot less interesting.
He's not really old enough to where the Cards should push him and advance him to AA so they can fast-track his development. He's also not young enough to be that interesting as a prospect. He's also a reliever, which significantly makes him less likely to make an MLB roster. Still, I'll be watching him as a potential LOOGY.
What to look for in 2013 - Hopefully he starts off well enough to earn a promotion to AA. If he does that, then I really like him as a future LOOGY.
ETA: 2015
Boone Whiting
Stats: A: 16 IP, 7.88 K/9, 0.56 BB/9, 0.56 ERA, .175 BABIP against; AA - 12 IP, 6.75 K/9, 2.25 BB/9, 1.50 ERA, .324 BABIP against
Whiting had a fantastic 2011 season with a 2.55 ERA, a 9.23 K/9, and a 0.83 BB/9. He missed most of 2012 to injury and did alright. His K rate lowered significantly. I mean he didn't pitch much overall. His K rate further declined when the Cardinals skipped him past A+ and his walk rate rose.
Then he pitched in the AFL and erased a lot of concerns. He had an 11.72 K/9 with a 2.84 BB/9. He had a 4.62 ERA, but the AFL is a notorious hitters' league. His high K rate returned despite a mediocre fastball (thanks to an amazing changeup). He's definitely a prospect to watch this year.
What to look for in 2013: Really to see how he does in a full season of AA ball - I'm not sure I know how he'll perform so just look at his overall performance
ETA - 2015
Other pitchers I didn't write about for some reason
Tyrell Jenkins - His 2012 was a step back and he lost a lot of steam as a prospect when the other Cardinals' major pitching prospects stock improved. Still, he's worth looking at to see if he can rebound.
John Gast - He might make an interesting 7th starter option assuming Kelly begins the year in the bullpen. (Or 8th starter option) He kind of bores me as a prospect as he's not a hard-thrower. But he's left-handed and his advanced stats show a performance better than his 5.10 ERA. He's what most teams 6th starter options are so rejoice!
Victor De Leon - He hasn't made it out of rookie league yet. But he's 20-years-old and he had 8.53 K/9. He needs to cut down on the walks though.
Lee Stoppelman - He had a 12.84 K/9 and a 0.79 ERA in A- last year as a reliever. He's 22-years-old so he was old for his league, but still worth following because those stats are insanely good.
(To make this post shorter, I'll just name a player per position now.)
Catcher
Steve Bean
2012 Stats: 154 PAs, .200/.325/.285, .291 BABIP
You know catcher's bad when I pick this player as my prospect to watch. Those stats don't inspire confidence. However, there's a few things to be optimistic about. One, he's younger than me. He was born in 1993. So he'll be playing most of 2013 as a 19-year-old.
Secondly, that walk rate is super encouraging. It means he has patience. He has discipline. Those numbers are across two levels and he had just as much patience when his numbers sucked (.125/.263/.213) as when they were pretty good (.302/.424/.400).
Anyway, he's a catcher so the level of offense expected is pretty low. Yadier Molina has the job locked down for a while too, so the Cardinals can be patient with Bean. Molina's contract ends somewhere around the time Bean would be major league ready. Bean's also the only catching prospect with any potential of starting.
What to look for in 2013 - Just for his numbers to improve at whatever level he is at
ETA - Too far to even pretend to know
First Base
Matt Adams
2012 Stats: 276 PAs, .329/.362/.624, 18 HRs, .360 BABIP; MLB Stats: 92 PAs, .244/.286/.384, 2 HRs, .317 BABIP
You know, before I learned advanced stats, I'm sure I would have loved Matt Adams as a prospect. I'd probably have unrealistic expectations about him. But, I am otherwise lukewarm on him as a prospect. It's not that I don't like him. I love the idea of him as a player. But his MLB stats reflect my concern.
It's not that I think he'll hit .244 in the majors. It's that he plays 1B really. 1B offense is insanely high, and Adams doesn't walk enough and strikes out too much to be able to live up to it as a starter. His hitting is reliant on his average to be .300 for it to be any good. Anyway, this is why I'm a fan of having Adams on our bench. I don't think he's a starter-quality player and it's stupid to waste him in Memphis to get him at-bats when I don't think he has a future as a starter. I love him off the bench though with a good amount of power.
(I kind of cheated with Adams, but I don't like any of their other 1B prospects at all)
What to look for in 2013 - His minor league track record is completely proven so how about some success in the majors?
ETA - Now
Second Base
Kolten Wong
2012 Stats: 579 PAs, .287/.348/.405, 9 HRs, .318 BABIP; AFL - 76 PAs, .324/.342/.392, HR, .371 BABIP
Wong, a 1st round pick, had a bit of a disappointing year in 2012, at least in terms of what I expected. Granted, that's about as good of a season as disappointing years come, but he definitely declined from 2011. Perhaps I raised my expectations to unrealistic measures after he batted .335 with a .401 OBP in 2011.
Still, unrealistic or not, he hit for a worse average, walked less, struck out more, and had less power, all in the hitter's park in Springfield. I may be overstating my point though, because he advanced past High A to get to AA. His hitting is still considered about average, his defense plays at 2B, and he's only 22-years-old.
What to look for in 2013 - I'll be looking for his numbers to improve in AAA, but I suppose there's a good argument it's good if he just maintains his line.
ETA - 2014
Shortstop
Greg Garcia
2012 Stats: 504 PAs, .284/.408/.420, 10 HRs, .334 BABIP
The root of my disappointment with Wong probably lies in how much better Garcia was than Wong in 2012. Yes, Garcia's a year older than Wong and yes, his development followed the traditional path of succeeding at each level before advancing instead of skipping a level. It's still weird to see a 7th round pick outperform a 1st round pick. Garcia can even play a more premium position!
I'm not really giving Garcia enough credit though. He walks in 15.9% of his plate appearances and strikes out in 12.1% of them. To repeat, last year he walked more than he struck out. I automatically am predisposed to liking this prospect. Add a good amount of pop at a middle infield position and this guy is downright exciting to project.
What to look for in 2013 - Um, hopefully he comes close to his AA numbers in AAA, but I expect a decline. Still, he'll have to fall off a cliff for him to stop being interesting.
ETA - mid-2013
Outfield
Oscar Taveras
2012 Stats: 531 PAs, .321/.380/.572, 23 HRs, .323 BABIP
Well, you knew this guy was coming. Taveras is being groomed as a future starting outfield right now by Jon Jay, Carlos Beltran, and Yadier Molina. The Cardinals are pulling out all the stops for him. He may not speak clear English right now, but he speaks the universal language of a home run. Or a double. Or a hit. See, that's what he does. He hits the ball a lot.
He had a .321 average with a .323 BABIP. Not many players can have the combination of power and lack of strikeouts to pull that off. Pujols was one of those players. I'm not making the comparison though. Those stats are beautiful to look at though.
What to look for in 2013 - Well, for him to do it in AAA, I guess. The way he played in Spring Training, I'm not really worried about it though.
ETA - mid-2013
Colin Walsh
2012 Stats: 425 PAs, .314/.419/.530, 16 HRs, .343 BABIP
Here's the outfield spot that goes to the "old for his league, but his stats are impossible to ignore" guy. A close second is Mike O'Neil, but ultimately a 24-year-old in A+ is not impressive if I'm talking possible MLB players. Walsh is 22-years-old in A, which is old, but if he advances a level a year, he ends up in the MLB by 26. With those stats, there's a decent argument to skip him past a level, which he might do. I'd put him in AA personally for 2013 to see how he adjusts.
Anyway, there's a lot of things to love in those stats, namely a sustainable .314 average, the ability to walk at a high rate, and good power. With a 14.1% BB rate, he hits on my soft spot for prospects. If a guy walks at a high rate, I'm almost guaranteed to like him. Think Tyler Greene.
What to look for in 2013 - Well, my ideal would be in AA and see how he adjusts. Not sure that'll happen so hopefully if he gets sent to A+, rakes, and quickly advances to AA by end of year.
ETA - 2015
James Ramsey
2012: 247 PAs, .229/.333/.314, HR, .309 BABIP
Well, just about everyone hated this pick last year (well anyone who doesn't trot out the "trust the organization" any time they do something stupid) and his performance last year did little to dissuade anyone. Still, he's worth following, because he's still just 22-years-old, the Cardinals generally hit on their 1st round picks, and he'll get a fresh start now.
That line is not encouraging though. His average is low and it seems he's not getting unlucky either due to his BABIP. He has not much power in his arsenal. He walked in 13.4% of his plate appearances, but that's not really enough to make you a good player.
What to look for in 2013 - Higher average with the same amount of walks and power would be a start
ETA - Too impossible to project
Also, search on google a list of the Top 20 Prospects for the Cardinals and you should follow them as well. Some of them will be in the majors the entire year, some of them will be on this list, and some of them you may have no idea why they are.
This is just my personal list of players I'm following, plus a few more that I decided to not include. Knowing how the farm is doing will make it that much more exciting when they advance to the big leagues. (It's also got it's rather disappointing moments, such as Bryan Anderson or Daryl Jones)
Catcher
Steve Bean
2012 Stats: 154 PAs, .200/.325/.285, .291 BABIP
You know catcher's bad when I pick this player as my prospect to watch. Those stats don't inspire confidence. However, there's a few things to be optimistic about. One, he's younger than me. He was born in 1993. So he'll be playing most of 2013 as a 19-year-old.
Secondly, that walk rate is super encouraging. It means he has patience. He has discipline. Those numbers are across two levels and he had just as much patience when his numbers sucked (.125/.263/.213) as when they were pretty good (.302/.424/.400).
Anyway, he's a catcher so the level of offense expected is pretty low. Yadier Molina has the job locked down for a while too, so the Cardinals can be patient with Bean. Molina's contract ends somewhere around the time Bean would be major league ready. Bean's also the only catching prospect with any potential of starting.
What to look for in 2013 - Just for his numbers to improve at whatever level he is at
ETA - Too far to even pretend to know
First Base
Matt Adams
2012 Stats: 276 PAs, .329/.362/.624, 18 HRs, .360 BABIP; MLB Stats: 92 PAs, .244/.286/.384, 2 HRs, .317 BABIP
You know, before I learned advanced stats, I'm sure I would have loved Matt Adams as a prospect. I'd probably have unrealistic expectations about him. But, I am otherwise lukewarm on him as a prospect. It's not that I don't like him. I love the idea of him as a player. But his MLB stats reflect my concern.
It's not that I think he'll hit .244 in the majors. It's that he plays 1B really. 1B offense is insanely high, and Adams doesn't walk enough and strikes out too much to be able to live up to it as a starter. His hitting is reliant on his average to be .300 for it to be any good. Anyway, this is why I'm a fan of having Adams on our bench. I don't think he's a starter-quality player and it's stupid to waste him in Memphis to get him at-bats when I don't think he has a future as a starter. I love him off the bench though with a good amount of power.
(I kind of cheated with Adams, but I don't like any of their other 1B prospects at all)
What to look for in 2013 - His minor league track record is completely proven so how about some success in the majors?
ETA - Now
Second Base
Kolten Wong
2012 Stats: 579 PAs, .287/.348/.405, 9 HRs, .318 BABIP; AFL - 76 PAs, .324/.342/.392, HR, .371 BABIP
Wong, a 1st round pick, had a bit of a disappointing year in 2012, at least in terms of what I expected. Granted, that's about as good of a season as disappointing years come, but he definitely declined from 2011. Perhaps I raised my expectations to unrealistic measures after he batted .335 with a .401 OBP in 2011.
Still, unrealistic or not, he hit for a worse average, walked less, struck out more, and had less power, all in the hitter's park in Springfield. I may be overstating my point though, because he advanced past High A to get to AA. His hitting is still considered about average, his defense plays at 2B, and he's only 22-years-old.
What to look for in 2013 - I'll be looking for his numbers to improve in AAA, but I suppose there's a good argument it's good if he just maintains his line.
ETA - 2014
Shortstop
Greg Garcia
2012 Stats: 504 PAs, .284/.408/.420, 10 HRs, .334 BABIP
The root of my disappointment with Wong probably lies in how much better Garcia was than Wong in 2012. Yes, Garcia's a year older than Wong and yes, his development followed the traditional path of succeeding at each level before advancing instead of skipping a level. It's still weird to see a 7th round pick outperform a 1st round pick. Garcia can even play a more premium position!
I'm not really giving Garcia enough credit though. He walks in 15.9% of his plate appearances and strikes out in 12.1% of them. To repeat, last year he walked more than he struck out. I automatically am predisposed to liking this prospect. Add a good amount of pop at a middle infield position and this guy is downright exciting to project.
What to look for in 2013 - Um, hopefully he comes close to his AA numbers in AAA, but I expect a decline. Still, he'll have to fall off a cliff for him to stop being interesting.
ETA - mid-2013
Outfield
Oscar Taveras
2012 Stats: 531 PAs, .321/.380/.572, 23 HRs, .323 BABIP
Well, you knew this guy was coming. Taveras is being groomed as a future starting outfield right now by Jon Jay, Carlos Beltran, and Yadier Molina. The Cardinals are pulling out all the stops for him. He may not speak clear English right now, but he speaks the universal language of a home run. Or a double. Or a hit. See, that's what he does. He hits the ball a lot.
He had a .321 average with a .323 BABIP. Not many players can have the combination of power and lack of strikeouts to pull that off. Pujols was one of those players. I'm not making the comparison though. Those stats are beautiful to look at though.
What to look for in 2013 - Well, for him to do it in AAA, I guess. The way he played in Spring Training, I'm not really worried about it though.
ETA - mid-2013
Colin Walsh
2012 Stats: 425 PAs, .314/.419/.530, 16 HRs, .343 BABIP
Here's the outfield spot that goes to the "old for his league, but his stats are impossible to ignore" guy. A close second is Mike O'Neil, but ultimately a 24-year-old in A+ is not impressive if I'm talking possible MLB players. Walsh is 22-years-old in A, which is old, but if he advances a level a year, he ends up in the MLB by 26. With those stats, there's a decent argument to skip him past a level, which he might do. I'd put him in AA personally for 2013 to see how he adjusts.
Anyway, there's a lot of things to love in those stats, namely a sustainable .314 average, the ability to walk at a high rate, and good power. With a 14.1% BB rate, he hits on my soft spot for prospects. If a guy walks at a high rate, I'm almost guaranteed to like him. Think Tyler Greene.
What to look for in 2013 - Well, my ideal would be in AA and see how he adjusts. Not sure that'll happen so hopefully if he gets sent to A+, rakes, and quickly advances to AA by end of year.
ETA - 2015
James Ramsey
2012: 247 PAs, .229/.333/.314, HR, .309 BABIP
Well, just about everyone hated this pick last year (well anyone who doesn't trot out the "trust the organization" any time they do something stupid) and his performance last year did little to dissuade anyone. Still, he's worth following, because he's still just 22-years-old, the Cardinals generally hit on their 1st round picks, and he'll get a fresh start now.
That line is not encouraging though. His average is low and it seems he's not getting unlucky either due to his BABIP. He has not much power in his arsenal. He walked in 13.4% of his plate appearances, but that's not really enough to make you a good player.
What to look for in 2013 - Higher average with the same amount of walks and power would be a start
ETA - Too impossible to project
Also, search on google a list of the Top 20 Prospects for the Cardinals and you should follow them as well. Some of them will be in the majors the entire year, some of them will be on this list, and some of them you may have no idea why they are.
This is just my personal list of players I'm following, plus a few more that I decided to not include. Knowing how the farm is doing will make it that much more exciting when they advance to the big leagues. (It's also got it's rather disappointing moments, such as Bryan Anderson or Daryl Jones)
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Cardinals 2013 Preview
The last two years, I've been certain what I've expected of the Cardinals. I strongly expected playoff appearances and a first place finish in the NL Central. I thought this before the season started and April only reinforced what I believed both seasons.
Yeah, except it didn't work out the way I expected. Sure, they made the playoffs, and sure, they were successful in them. But, the regular seasons went drastically different than I expected.
This year though? I have little expectations. By that I mean, I literally have no idea if the Cardinals will finish first, second, or third. (I'm going to rule out fourth). It seems a lot of people are penciling the Reds in first this upcoming season, which I found interesting. Anyway, I'm not going to try and factor what the standings will be like, but simply how many wins the average projection has the Cardinals winning.
I'm going to use WAR here for several reasons: it's pretty much the only stat that can attempt to grasp a player's overall value; theoretically, WAR translates to wins; and finally convenience.
For the uninitiated, WAR is wins above replacement level. Simply put, it's how many wins a player is worth over a replacement player. What is a replacement level? I found a definition far more eloquent and better said than I could hope to replicate so I'll just quote Graham MacAree of Looking Landing:
The replacement level team last year would have won 43.5 games in a year. Last year, collectively, the Cardinals had 52.3 WAR as a team, which would have landed at 95-96 wins. Needless to say, they underperformed. It makes sense though. Last year, it felt like the Cardinals had a lot of good performances, but for some reason it didn't translate to wins.
So 52.3 WAR is the baseline WAR that we will judge 2013 on. I'm calling the talent of last year's squad a 95 win team. If you're interested in figuring more on WAR, check out this link for calculating WAR for hitters and this link for calculating WAR for pitchers.
So being a 95 talent WAR team, just to be clear, does not make the team a 95 win team. WAR isn't completely accurate in judging wins. However, the Cardinals lost an inordinate amount of one-run games, which is mostly the blame of how such a disparity between wins and WAR happens. (Don't worry, that's mostly luck and does not correlate well year-to-year)
Without a doubt, the Cardinals got worse from 2012, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Well, actually let me make a correction to that statement. Knowing what we know and using player projections for 2013, the Cardinals clearly got worse in 2013. Shelby Miller or Oscar Taveras being MVP candidates could happen, but to assume it will happen is foolhardy.
So I will compare last year's team to this year's team and see what I should expect to happen in 2013.
Starting Rotation
2012 WAR - 17.3
The Cardinals starting pitchers in 2012 combined for 17.3 WAR which placed 4th in the MLB. Almost everything went right last year. Eight pitchers combined for 162 starts, and every single one of them was at least an average pitcher according to WAR. That is extremely unusual. In fact, the top five starters all averaged over 2 WAR, which is the benchmark for an average player. (An average team would win 81 games for reference)
In order, the Cardinals starters finished with the following WAR: Adam Wainwright, 4.4; Kyle Lohse, 3.6; Lance Lynn & Jaime Garcia, 2.9; Jake Westbrook, 2.3; Joe Kelly (as starter), 0.8; Shelby Miller & Chris Carpenter, 0.2
Take away Kyle Lohse and Chris Carpenter for starters to begin analysis for 2013 and you have a loss of 3.8 WAR. Four of the other starters remain and the fifth starter (likely going to Miller) is what we will use to compare to this year's team to last year's - assuming spot starts from Kelly. (For now, Rosenthal will be graded purely as a reliever, although he could start if injuries take their toll.)
I'm using the average of Steamer, Bill James, and zIPS to determine the projected WAR number for 2013. The averages of the starters are as follows: Wainwright, 4.6; Lynn, 2.7 ; Garcia, 3.4; Westbrook, 1.9; Miller, 1.7; Kelly, 1.2.
Collectively, that equals 15.5 WAR as a starting staff. So to the surprise of no one, losing Kyle Lohse and relying on a rookie will produce a slight decline for the rotation. Things could go right to where we either equal or surpass last year's total. Wainwright could have a Cy Young caliber season, Miller could immediately become an ace, etc. (The only plausible arguments I could accept for an increase in WAR)
Bullpen
2012: 1.6 WAR
Well, this is the exact opposite of the starting rotation. Whereas the rotation barely has room for improvement, the bullpen barely has room for decline. The Cardinals finished 27th in WAR for relievers with just 1.6 WAR. While that slightly speaks to how WAR probably undervalues relievers, it also shows how bad the Cardinals bullpen was last year. (The Cardinals had a lot of negative WAR relievers)
Here is the WAR for relievers in 2012: Jason Motte, 1.1; Mitchell Boggs & Edward Mujica, 0.7; Fernando Salas, 0.4; Miller, Kelly, & Rosenthal, 0.2; Lynn, Chuckie Fick, & Sam Freeman, 0.0; Barrett Browning, Brian Fuentes, & Brandon Dickson, -0.1; Kyle McClellan, Victor Marte, & Maikel Cleto, -0.2; JC Romero & Eduardo Sanchez, -0.3; Mark Rzep, -0.4.
If you're counting, that's three relievers who were replacement level and nine relievers who were below replacement level. That's astoundingly bad. Surely, 2013 will only bring improvement?
Well, Motte was the highest valued reliever so naturally, projections expect a slight decline with an average of 0.8 WAR. The rest of the relievers: Boggs, 0.5; Mujica, 0.5; Rosenthal, 0.5; Salas, 0.4; Mark Rzep, 0.3; Randy Choate, 0.2; Cleto, 0.2; Freeman, 0.0; Sanchez, -0.2.
Collectively, the bullpen is projected for 3.2 WAR, an upgrade over last year! It's actually semi-significant as it takes a chunk out of the SP WAR lost.
Catcher
2012 - 6.7 WAR
Well, this likely won't be topped in 2013. Molina had a career year and I don't really see any backup catchers making much of a difference next year. Tony Cruz and Brian Anderson combined for 0.2 WAR so it's not like the bar's high or anything, but it's hard to amass much WAR when Yadier is catching 140 games.
Anyway, expect a slight decline from Molina, at least that's what projections tell you. Molina is projected for 4.5 WAR in 2013. Tony Cruz makes up for some of the difference with 0.7 WAR. I honestly don't expect Molina to drop down that significantly, but I also don't really expect Cruz to put up that WAR either so I feel it's kind of a wash. Moving on.
1B/3B
2012 - 9.0 WAR
I was going to do this position-by-position, but then Matt Carpenter showed up on 1B and I had no idea how to factor his time in so I decided to do corner infield and middle infield as two separate categories.
Allen Craig is factored as a 1B only in this to avoid confusion. Craig and Berkman achieve 3.5 WAR combined, Freese is worth 4.1 WAR, and Carpenter backups them up with a solid 1.6 WAR in 340 PAs.
Projections are very conservative on purpose to account for injuries so I suspect an expected decline here too with Craig and Freese as injury risks. Both players strangely land at an expected WAR of 2.9. Carpenter is expected to get 1.6 WAR again. Matt Adams is expected to make a minor contribution at 0.5 WAR.
And the bad news. Wigginton is projected for -0.1 WAR. So yeah, that signing made a lot of sense. Keep in mind that Spring Training numbers were ignored so his terrible Spring has nothing to do with those projections.
2B/SS
2012 - 3.7
Well, this is unfortunate. The Cardinals' big weakness actually produced quite well thanks to Pete Kozma going all Bo Hart on us. So instead of having a low bar, 3.7 WAR is actually probably not attainable by the group the Cardinals have, unless you believe Kozma is an All-Star.
Furcal, in his limited time, was worth 1.2 WAR. Kozma, in less than 100 PAs, was worth 1.4 WAR, which insane. Kozma is expected to be worth 0.3 WAR for the Cardinals in about 400 PAs, which sounds about right to me given his minor league history and suspect defense.
Dan Descalso provided only 0.5 WAR last year, and is expected to increase on that total this year with an average projection of 1.0 WAR. Schumaker, who provided 1.1 WAR, is now gone. If Ryan Jackson ever gets here, he's projected for about 0.5 WAR.
Here's a strange one. Kolten Wong has high projections, expecting to achieve 1.3 WAR over about 380 PAs. I think that he won't get that many PAs this year, so I'll round that down to 1.0 WAR.
OF
2012 - 14 WAR
WOW! With such a high total, unfortunately, I have little doubt for a decline. Matt Holliday was worth 5.1 WAR last year leading the outfield. His modest projections have him finishing the year at 4.2 WAR.
Jon Jay was the second best outfield believe it or not with 4.1 WAR. His WAR sinks down to 3.1, mostly because career years are followed by worse years.
Carlos Beltran comes in next with 3.6 WAR and surprise, he declines as well. He finishes with an average projection of 2.3 WAR.
It gets worse. Shane Robinson had an unbelievable year (for Shane Robinson) with 1.0 WAR and his WAR drops to 0.4 WAR in 2013 projections. Chambers, if given any time, landed at 0.4 WAR when I decreased his PAs to the amount I expect (instead of almost 400 in the average projection).
Overall
2012 - 52.3
2013 - 44.9
Important things to keep in mind: 1) This is based on projections, which historically a lot of these players have performed better than. 2) The team received an insane amount of "career" years, including Freese, Jay, Craig, Robinson, Molina, and Kozma. Besides Craig maybe, I fully expect all of them to have worse years than last year.
Also, regarding the starting staff, the Cardinals received some luck from their performances. This pitching staff hinges on Adam Wainwright and Shelby Miller really. Will Wainwright go back to pre-Tommy John self? (I expect it personally) Will Miller immediately become a dominant pitcher? (I don't think he will - Look at how he started AAA).
So, as currently constructed, I have the Cardinals as an 88 win team. I haven't done this exercise on the Reds, but I'm fairly certain that would fall below the Reds' projections.
The wild card in all of this is Oscar Taveras, who isn't on the 40 man roster right now so I excluded him. He's expected to come up mid-season, but if he comes up, he's replacing an injured player - either Craig, Jay, Holliday, or Beltran. And while I'm pretty optimistic on him, I'm not expecting him to perform better than any of them immediately so I don't think his possible inclusion warrants a raise in a projection. However, if he comes up in September call-ups and rakes, that could impact it.
Now, I know what to expect from the Cardinals this year - 88 wins. I'm taking the over on that bet personally.
Yeah, except it didn't work out the way I expected. Sure, they made the playoffs, and sure, they were successful in them. But, the regular seasons went drastically different than I expected.
This year though? I have little expectations. By that I mean, I literally have no idea if the Cardinals will finish first, second, or third. (I'm going to rule out fourth). It seems a lot of people are penciling the Reds in first this upcoming season, which I found interesting. Anyway, I'm not going to try and factor what the standings will be like, but simply how many wins the average projection has the Cardinals winning.
I'm going to use WAR here for several reasons: it's pretty much the only stat that can attempt to grasp a player's overall value; theoretically, WAR translates to wins; and finally convenience.
For the uninitiated, WAR is wins above replacement level. Simply put, it's how many wins a player is worth over a replacement player. What is a replacement level? I found a definition far more eloquent and better said than I could hope to replicate so I'll just quote Graham MacAree of Looking Landing:
We can define a replacement level player as one who costs no marginal resources to acquire. This is the type of player who would fill in for the starter in case of injuries, slumps, alien abductions, etc.I'll use some Cardinals players as an example: Ryan Jackson, Tyler Greene, Adron Chambers, Sam Freeman, and Barrett Browning. These are players that are mostly in every organization and are virtually worthless in the trade market. They also don't provide much of anything on the field.
The replacement level team last year would have won 43.5 games in a year. Last year, collectively, the Cardinals had 52.3 WAR as a team, which would have landed at 95-96 wins. Needless to say, they underperformed. It makes sense though. Last year, it felt like the Cardinals had a lot of good performances, but for some reason it didn't translate to wins.
So 52.3 WAR is the baseline WAR that we will judge 2013 on. I'm calling the talent of last year's squad a 95 win team. If you're interested in figuring more on WAR, check out this link for calculating WAR for hitters and this link for calculating WAR for pitchers.
So being a 95 talent WAR team, just to be clear, does not make the team a 95 win team. WAR isn't completely accurate in judging wins. However, the Cardinals lost an inordinate amount of one-run games, which is mostly the blame of how such a disparity between wins and WAR happens. (Don't worry, that's mostly luck and does not correlate well year-to-year)
Without a doubt, the Cardinals got worse from 2012, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Well, actually let me make a correction to that statement. Knowing what we know and using player projections for 2013, the Cardinals clearly got worse in 2013. Shelby Miller or Oscar Taveras being MVP candidates could happen, but to assume it will happen is foolhardy.
So I will compare last year's team to this year's team and see what I should expect to happen in 2013.
Starting Rotation
2012 WAR - 17.3
The Cardinals starting pitchers in 2012 combined for 17.3 WAR which placed 4th in the MLB. Almost everything went right last year. Eight pitchers combined for 162 starts, and every single one of them was at least an average pitcher according to WAR. That is extremely unusual. In fact, the top five starters all averaged over 2 WAR, which is the benchmark for an average player. (An average team would win 81 games for reference)
In order, the Cardinals starters finished with the following WAR: Adam Wainwright, 4.4; Kyle Lohse, 3.6; Lance Lynn & Jaime Garcia, 2.9; Jake Westbrook, 2.3; Joe Kelly (as starter), 0.8; Shelby Miller & Chris Carpenter, 0.2
Take away Kyle Lohse and Chris Carpenter for starters to begin analysis for 2013 and you have a loss of 3.8 WAR. Four of the other starters remain and the fifth starter (likely going to Miller) is what we will use to compare to this year's team to last year's - assuming spot starts from Kelly. (For now, Rosenthal will be graded purely as a reliever, although he could start if injuries take their toll.)
I'm using the average of Steamer, Bill James, and zIPS to determine the projected WAR number for 2013. The averages of the starters are as follows: Wainwright, 4.6; Lynn, 2.7 ; Garcia, 3.4; Westbrook, 1.9; Miller, 1.7; Kelly, 1.2.
Collectively, that equals 15.5 WAR as a starting staff. So to the surprise of no one, losing Kyle Lohse and relying on a rookie will produce a slight decline for the rotation. Things could go right to where we either equal or surpass last year's total. Wainwright could have a Cy Young caliber season, Miller could immediately become an ace, etc. (The only plausible arguments I could accept for an increase in WAR)
Bullpen
2012: 1.6 WAR
Well, this is the exact opposite of the starting rotation. Whereas the rotation barely has room for improvement, the bullpen barely has room for decline. The Cardinals finished 27th in WAR for relievers with just 1.6 WAR. While that slightly speaks to how WAR probably undervalues relievers, it also shows how bad the Cardinals bullpen was last year. (The Cardinals had a lot of negative WAR relievers)
Here is the WAR for relievers in 2012: Jason Motte, 1.1; Mitchell Boggs & Edward Mujica, 0.7; Fernando Salas, 0.4; Miller, Kelly, & Rosenthal, 0.2; Lynn, Chuckie Fick, & Sam Freeman, 0.0; Barrett Browning, Brian Fuentes, & Brandon Dickson, -0.1; Kyle McClellan, Victor Marte, & Maikel Cleto, -0.2; JC Romero & Eduardo Sanchez, -0.3; Mark Rzep, -0.4.
If you're counting, that's three relievers who were replacement level and nine relievers who were below replacement level. That's astoundingly bad. Surely, 2013 will only bring improvement?
Well, Motte was the highest valued reliever so naturally, projections expect a slight decline with an average of 0.8 WAR. The rest of the relievers: Boggs, 0.5; Mujica, 0.5; Rosenthal, 0.5; Salas, 0.4; Mark Rzep, 0.3; Randy Choate, 0.2; Cleto, 0.2; Freeman, 0.0; Sanchez, -0.2.
Collectively, the bullpen is projected for 3.2 WAR, an upgrade over last year! It's actually semi-significant as it takes a chunk out of the SP WAR lost.
Catcher
2012 - 6.7 WAR
Well, this likely won't be topped in 2013. Molina had a career year and I don't really see any backup catchers making much of a difference next year. Tony Cruz and Brian Anderson combined for 0.2 WAR so it's not like the bar's high or anything, but it's hard to amass much WAR when Yadier is catching 140 games.
Anyway, expect a slight decline from Molina, at least that's what projections tell you. Molina is projected for 4.5 WAR in 2013. Tony Cruz makes up for some of the difference with 0.7 WAR. I honestly don't expect Molina to drop down that significantly, but I also don't really expect Cruz to put up that WAR either so I feel it's kind of a wash. Moving on.
1B/3B
2012 - 9.0 WAR
I was going to do this position-by-position, but then Matt Carpenter showed up on 1B and I had no idea how to factor his time in so I decided to do corner infield and middle infield as two separate categories.
Allen Craig is factored as a 1B only in this to avoid confusion. Craig and Berkman achieve 3.5 WAR combined, Freese is worth 4.1 WAR, and Carpenter backups them up with a solid 1.6 WAR in 340 PAs.
Projections are very conservative on purpose to account for injuries so I suspect an expected decline here too with Craig and Freese as injury risks. Both players strangely land at an expected WAR of 2.9. Carpenter is expected to get 1.6 WAR again. Matt Adams is expected to make a minor contribution at 0.5 WAR.
And the bad news. Wigginton is projected for -0.1 WAR. So yeah, that signing made a lot of sense. Keep in mind that Spring Training numbers were ignored so his terrible Spring has nothing to do with those projections.
2B/SS
2012 - 3.7
Well, this is unfortunate. The Cardinals' big weakness actually produced quite well thanks to Pete Kozma going all Bo Hart on us. So instead of having a low bar, 3.7 WAR is actually probably not attainable by the group the Cardinals have, unless you believe Kozma is an All-Star.
Furcal, in his limited time, was worth 1.2 WAR. Kozma, in less than 100 PAs, was worth 1.4 WAR, which insane. Kozma is expected to be worth 0.3 WAR for the Cardinals in about 400 PAs, which sounds about right to me given his minor league history and suspect defense.
Dan Descalso provided only 0.5 WAR last year, and is expected to increase on that total this year with an average projection of 1.0 WAR. Schumaker, who provided 1.1 WAR, is now gone. If Ryan Jackson ever gets here, he's projected for about 0.5 WAR.
Here's a strange one. Kolten Wong has high projections, expecting to achieve 1.3 WAR over about 380 PAs. I think that he won't get that many PAs this year, so I'll round that down to 1.0 WAR.
OF
2012 - 14 WAR
WOW! With such a high total, unfortunately, I have little doubt for a decline. Matt Holliday was worth 5.1 WAR last year leading the outfield. His modest projections have him finishing the year at 4.2 WAR.
Jon Jay was the second best outfield believe it or not with 4.1 WAR. His WAR sinks down to 3.1, mostly because career years are followed by worse years.
Carlos Beltran comes in next with 3.6 WAR and surprise, he declines as well. He finishes with an average projection of 2.3 WAR.
It gets worse. Shane Robinson had an unbelievable year (for Shane Robinson) with 1.0 WAR and his WAR drops to 0.4 WAR in 2013 projections. Chambers, if given any time, landed at 0.4 WAR when I decreased his PAs to the amount I expect (instead of almost 400 in the average projection).
Overall
2012 - 52.3
2013 - 44.9
Important things to keep in mind: 1) This is based on projections, which historically a lot of these players have performed better than. 2) The team received an insane amount of "career" years, including Freese, Jay, Craig, Robinson, Molina, and Kozma. Besides Craig maybe, I fully expect all of them to have worse years than last year.
Also, regarding the starting staff, the Cardinals received some luck from their performances. This pitching staff hinges on Adam Wainwright and Shelby Miller really. Will Wainwright go back to pre-Tommy John self? (I expect it personally) Will Miller immediately become a dominant pitcher? (I don't think he will - Look at how he started AAA).
So, as currently constructed, I have the Cardinals as an 88 win team. I haven't done this exercise on the Reds, but I'm fairly certain that would fall below the Reds' projections.
The wild card in all of this is Oscar Taveras, who isn't on the 40 man roster right now so I excluded him. He's expected to come up mid-season, but if he comes up, he's replacing an injured player - either Craig, Jay, Holliday, or Beltran. And while I'm pretty optimistic on him, I'm not expecting him to perform better than any of them immediately so I don't think his possible inclusion warrants a raise in a projection. However, if he comes up in September call-ups and rakes, that could impact it.
Now, I know what to expect from the Cardinals this year - 88 wins. I'm taking the over on that bet personally.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Is Matt Holliday Back?
On May 1 of this season, Matt Holliday's numbers were troubling. He was batting just .215 with just 8 walks and 7 extra-base hits. This is especially problematic for a player like Holliday who seems to evoke criticism with even the slightest missteps from fans.
Make no mistake: Holliday has been more than worth his contract up to this point. This is how long-term contracts are supposed to work. Player outperforms salary first couple seasons (check), and the last few seasons, he's an above average and overpaid player. That's the ideal model. Rarely do they work that way in actuality. (*Cough Albert Cough*)*
In April, Holliday's problems stemmed beyond batting average. He had just a 7.9% BB rate compared to a career 9.4% BB rate. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Since 2008, he's had a BB rate above 10.2% with the highest being 11.6% which was last season. So he should be expected to walk in about 11% of his plate appearances.
His isolated power (slugging percentage - batting average; "power" average) was .179, which was also below his career average of .225. His lowest isolated power in his career is .198 which happened twice in his first two big league seasons. Last year, it was at .229. Given age-related decline, he final season line should be around .215.
I searched into why his ISO was lower than previous seasons. He had hit 4 homers, which put him on pace for around 24 homers. That's not really that low for a hitter like Holliday, although he did hit 23 homers in about 150 less plate appearances than normal last season.
The real reason is that he stopped hitting as many doubles. He hit just 3 doubles in April. That would put him on pace for 18 doubles on the season. Given 600 plate appearances, Holliday has never had less than 38 doubles in season. That's quite the precipitous drop.
To be fair to Holliday, it also should be noted that he was on the bad luck side of things. Baseball is a tough sport where a line drive can be an out and a pop fly a hit. That's obviously the extreme side of things, but the point is that a batter can get unlucky over a period of 100 plate appearances. That's about 75 balls in play. The difference in a few hits going your way results in a considerably higher average.
In April, his batting average on balls in play (BABIP) was just .225. That's probably not all unlucky since anyone who saw Holliday play can attest to. He was clearly struggling and was probably not getting as good of contact as he is expected. Still, his career BABIP is .345 and the last two seasons with the Cardinals were at .330. Given age-related decline, he should be expected to have about a .330 BABIP.
Luckily, there is a tool to try and calculate how lucky or unlucky a hitter was based off his batted ball profile. It's called xBABIP. The goal is to take into account how he hit the ball and use that to estimate what his BABIP would have been with basically no luck involved. xBABIP takes into account eight different things. Ground ball/fly ball ratio, line drive percentage, fly ball percentage, ground ball percentage, infield fly ball percentage, infield hit percentage, bunt for a hit percentage, and homer/fly ball rate.
Using a xBABIP calculator (which is both hard to find online and necessary given the formula is complicated), Matt Holliday's lands at .328, which is slightly below his .330 last season. This does not mean he should have hit for a .328 BABIP if he wasn't lucky or unlucky. There are error bars in classifying line drives between fly balls, ground balls, and line drives. However, it does somewhat show that he has been getting unlucky on balls hit in play by a good amount.
So, to summarize, Holliday's biggest issue in April was that he wasn't walking as much as he normally does and he is well off where he is supposed to be in hitting doubles. His K% was actually lower than last season at 17% so he wasn't even striking out at a high rate.
This brings me to the topic of my post: Is Matt Holliday back? I'll use arbitrary endpoints to greater benefit my narrative by using the date when Holliday's average was lowest, which was on April 21, when it was a Pujolsian .194 (yesterday's game actually pushed him to .212 so my bad on that one). Since that time, he has posted the following line:
First 15 games: 70 PAs, .194/.229/.358, 4.3% BB rate, 18.6% K rate, .191 ISO, .196 BABIP
Since: 92 PAs, .333/.435/.541, 15.2% BB rate, 20.7% K rate, .208 ISO, .418 BABIP
He's pretty much erased any doubts about his ability to walk at a good rate. With a walk in yesterday's win, his BB% for the season is now 10.5% which isn't very far off from where I want him to finish. A minor concern is that his isolated power is only .208 in that hot streak when he is expected to finish around .215. After all, if he can't hit his expected line in a hot streak alone, how can he do it in a season. However, he has 3 doubles in May already so I expect he will somehow still finish the year with greater than 38 doubles.
But is he back? (By the way, I know he never left, just go with it). My personal expectation is that his BABIP (currently sitting at .302) will finish at .320. So if he had a .320 BABIP right now, would his stats look normal? If they look normal, then it's reasonable to assume that he is fine. Let it be said, I have full confidence in Matt Holliday, and even if the stats don't back it up, I will assume he'll finish the season back to his normal standards or slightly below (He's 32-years-old, so if they are slightly below, well that's expected to happen.)
If two of his outs turned to singles to date and made his BABIP .320, his average would be .283 with a .358 OBP with a .483 slugging percentage. It should be noted by the way, that a .320 BABIP is a slightly conservative projection given he has literally never had a BABIP below .330 in his career. (He did play at Coors Field, which greatly enhances a person's stats).
He's walking at normal rates, power slightly below, and his average slightly below. How does that explain the fact that his .389 OBP the last two seasons drops to .358 with only slight drops in average and walking ability? Well, randomly, pitchers decided to stop throwing the ball and hitting Matt Holliday with it. Maybe the pitchers all got to know him better and decided against hitting him. There has been data to back up that a player has a certain ability to get hit by a baseball. Craig Biggio obviously comes to mind.
Matt Holliday this season has been hit by a baseball zero times this season. For whatever reason that is, it's not going to continue. Or at least there is no reason to expect it to continue. His career low in HBPs is 6 and he hasn't done that since 2004. The last two seasons, he's been hit by a pitch eight times. Since we've already played over 1/6 of the season, he'll probably get hit less than six times this year. Assuming a .358 OBP without getting hit by a pitch over 650 plate appearances, if you add in five HBPs to his final season stats, his OBP raises to .366.
That still seems low. The reasoning is his increase in strikeouts and my projected decrease in BABIP. There is still a chance that he cuts down on the strikeouts, hits for a .330 BABIP (or more), and gets hit by a pitch eight times in the next 500 plate appearances (which has happened before in his career with 15 HBPs in 2006).
Is Matt Holliday back? The answer is yes. But, Holliday is 32-years-old, starting the downside of his career. His stats will likely - doesn't mean they will - decline from what we've come to expect in this coming season. Unfortunately, some fans - who for some reason have come to dislike him - will grow a further hatred for him. My message to those fans: What did you expect? Player's numbers don't increase after signing big deals. If you're lucky, they stay the same. If you're unlucky, you get Carl Crawford or.... yeah you know who I'm talking about.
My final thought: I would not be surprised AT ALL if Matt Holliday beat these admittedly modest expectations. However, I would be shocked if he did worse than these expectations. So I guess what I'm saying is the numbers set forth on this blog are what I would consider the low end of possibility. This doesn't represent reality as that is what most projection systems, such as zIPs, think he's going to do based on history. This represents my personal gut feeling about Matt Holliday. (Yes, I did just make a claim without stats, what you gonna do about it?)
*Yes I know it's been a month and a half of baseball in Albert's contract, but his early season numbers strongly suggest his contract will be an albatross of a contract, sooner rather than later. Rarely would I make such declarations so soon, but... I mean have you his stats???!
Make no mistake: Holliday has been more than worth his contract up to this point. This is how long-term contracts are supposed to work. Player outperforms salary first couple seasons (check), and the last few seasons, he's an above average and overpaid player. That's the ideal model. Rarely do they work that way in actuality. (*Cough Albert Cough*)*
In April, Holliday's problems stemmed beyond batting average. He had just a 7.9% BB rate compared to a career 9.4% BB rate. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Since 2008, he's had a BB rate above 10.2% with the highest being 11.6% which was last season. So he should be expected to walk in about 11% of his plate appearances.
His isolated power (slugging percentage - batting average; "power" average) was .179, which was also below his career average of .225. His lowest isolated power in his career is .198 which happened twice in his first two big league seasons. Last year, it was at .229. Given age-related decline, he final season line should be around .215.
I searched into why his ISO was lower than previous seasons. He had hit 4 homers, which put him on pace for around 24 homers. That's not really that low for a hitter like Holliday, although he did hit 23 homers in about 150 less plate appearances than normal last season.
The real reason is that he stopped hitting as many doubles. He hit just 3 doubles in April. That would put him on pace for 18 doubles on the season. Given 600 plate appearances, Holliday has never had less than 38 doubles in season. That's quite the precipitous drop.
To be fair to Holliday, it also should be noted that he was on the bad luck side of things. Baseball is a tough sport where a line drive can be an out and a pop fly a hit. That's obviously the extreme side of things, but the point is that a batter can get unlucky over a period of 100 plate appearances. That's about 75 balls in play. The difference in a few hits going your way results in a considerably higher average.
In April, his batting average on balls in play (BABIP) was just .225. That's probably not all unlucky since anyone who saw Holliday play can attest to. He was clearly struggling and was probably not getting as good of contact as he is expected. Still, his career BABIP is .345 and the last two seasons with the Cardinals were at .330. Given age-related decline, he should be expected to have about a .330 BABIP.
Luckily, there is a tool to try and calculate how lucky or unlucky a hitter was based off his batted ball profile. It's called xBABIP. The goal is to take into account how he hit the ball and use that to estimate what his BABIP would have been with basically no luck involved. xBABIP takes into account eight different things. Ground ball/fly ball ratio, line drive percentage, fly ball percentage, ground ball percentage, infield fly ball percentage, infield hit percentage, bunt for a hit percentage, and homer/fly ball rate.
Using a xBABIP calculator (which is both hard to find online and necessary given the formula is complicated), Matt Holliday's lands at .328, which is slightly below his .330 last season. This does not mean he should have hit for a .328 BABIP if he wasn't lucky or unlucky. There are error bars in classifying line drives between fly balls, ground balls, and line drives. However, it does somewhat show that he has been getting unlucky on balls hit in play by a good amount.
So, to summarize, Holliday's biggest issue in April was that he wasn't walking as much as he normally does and he is well off where he is supposed to be in hitting doubles. His K% was actually lower than last season at 17% so he wasn't even striking out at a high rate.
This brings me to the topic of my post: Is Matt Holliday back? I'll use arbitrary endpoints to greater benefit my narrative by using the date when Holliday's average was lowest, which was on April 21, when it was a Pujolsian .194 (yesterday's game actually pushed him to .212 so my bad on that one). Since that time, he has posted the following line:
First 15 games: 70 PAs, .194/.229/.358, 4.3% BB rate, 18.6% K rate, .191 ISO, .196 BABIP
Since: 92 PAs, .333/.435/.541, 15.2% BB rate, 20.7% K rate, .208 ISO, .418 BABIP
He's pretty much erased any doubts about his ability to walk at a good rate. With a walk in yesterday's win, his BB% for the season is now 10.5% which isn't very far off from where I want him to finish. A minor concern is that his isolated power is only .208 in that hot streak when he is expected to finish around .215. After all, if he can't hit his expected line in a hot streak alone, how can he do it in a season. However, he has 3 doubles in May already so I expect he will somehow still finish the year with greater than 38 doubles.
But is he back? (By the way, I know he never left, just go with it). My personal expectation is that his BABIP (currently sitting at .302) will finish at .320. So if he had a .320 BABIP right now, would his stats look normal? If they look normal, then it's reasonable to assume that he is fine. Let it be said, I have full confidence in Matt Holliday, and even if the stats don't back it up, I will assume he'll finish the season back to his normal standards or slightly below (He's 32-years-old, so if they are slightly below, well that's expected to happen.)
If two of his outs turned to singles to date and made his BABIP .320, his average would be .283 with a .358 OBP with a .483 slugging percentage. It should be noted by the way, that a .320 BABIP is a slightly conservative projection given he has literally never had a BABIP below .330 in his career. (He did play at Coors Field, which greatly enhances a person's stats).
He's walking at normal rates, power slightly below, and his average slightly below. How does that explain the fact that his .389 OBP the last two seasons drops to .358 with only slight drops in average and walking ability? Well, randomly, pitchers decided to stop throwing the ball and hitting Matt Holliday with it. Maybe the pitchers all got to know him better and decided against hitting him. There has been data to back up that a player has a certain ability to get hit by a baseball. Craig Biggio obviously comes to mind.
Matt Holliday this season has been hit by a baseball zero times this season. For whatever reason that is, it's not going to continue. Or at least there is no reason to expect it to continue. His career low in HBPs is 6 and he hasn't done that since 2004. The last two seasons, he's been hit by a pitch eight times. Since we've already played over 1/6 of the season, he'll probably get hit less than six times this year. Assuming a .358 OBP without getting hit by a pitch over 650 plate appearances, if you add in five HBPs to his final season stats, his OBP raises to .366.
That still seems low. The reasoning is his increase in strikeouts and my projected decrease in BABIP. There is still a chance that he cuts down on the strikeouts, hits for a .330 BABIP (or more), and gets hit by a pitch eight times in the next 500 plate appearances (which has happened before in his career with 15 HBPs in 2006).
Is Matt Holliday back? The answer is yes. But, Holliday is 32-years-old, starting the downside of his career. His stats will likely - doesn't mean they will - decline from what we've come to expect in this coming season. Unfortunately, some fans - who for some reason have come to dislike him - will grow a further hatred for him. My message to those fans: What did you expect? Player's numbers don't increase after signing big deals. If you're lucky, they stay the same. If you're unlucky, you get Carl Crawford or.... yeah you know who I'm talking about.
My final thought: I would not be surprised AT ALL if Matt Holliday beat these admittedly modest expectations. However, I would be shocked if he did worse than these expectations. So I guess what I'm saying is the numbers set forth on this blog are what I would consider the low end of possibility. This doesn't represent reality as that is what most projection systems, such as zIPs, think he's going to do based on history. This represents my personal gut feeling about Matt Holliday. (Yes, I did just make a claim without stats, what you gonna do about it?)
*Yes I know it's been a month and a half of baseball in Albert's contract, but his early season numbers strongly suggest his contract will be an albatross of a contract, sooner rather than later. Rarely would I make such declarations so soon, but... I mean have you his stats???!
Monday, November 28, 2011
MVP and Cy Young: My Choices
In the past, I have made choices for all the MLB awards, but simply put, I do not care who wins the Manager of the Year award or the Comeback of the Year award. If those choices aren't blatantly obvious (such as Jim Tracy in 2010 or Lance Berkman this year in which case my decision is a foregone conclusion), then it's a throw-up decision. Take names out of a hat for all I care.
And no I don't care at all that Tony LaRussa didn't win it. I don't know who the best manager was, but it certainly wasn't Tony. If you give him credit for the miraculous comeback (and really with the talent he has, that's a bit ridiculous in my opinion), then you have to give him credit for the miraculous failure between June and August. The playoffs are where he really "earned" the Manager of the Year and they vote on the award before they begin.
Back to the topic at hand and the reason I wrote this post, I will post my picks for the AL and NL MVP and Cy Young. For the sake of discussion perhaps, I have put forth the Top 10 candidates on my ballot for the MVP voting. To say the least, I have different ballots than what ended up being the final decision.
Here is my AL MVP list first:
1. Jose Bautista, RF - Blue Jays - .302/.447/.608, 43 HRs (Best Stat: 132 BBs)
2. Jacoby Ellsbury, CF - Red Sox - .321/.376/.552, 32 HRs (Best Stat: 39 SBs)
3. Miguel Cabrera, 1B - Tigers - .344/.448/.566, 30 HRs (Best Stat: 48 Doubles)
4. Justin Verlander, SP - Tigers - 251 IP, 2.40 ERA, 8.96 K/9, 4.39 K/BB (Best Stat: 80.3% LOB rate)
5. Curtis Granderson, CF - Tigers - .262/.364/.552, 41 HRs (Best Stat: 10 3Bs)
6. Dustin Pedroia, 2B - Red Sox - .307/.387.474, 21 HRs, (Best Stat: 26 SBs)
7. Ian Kinsler, 2B - Rangers - .255/.355/.477, 32 HRs, (Best Stat: 121 runs)
8. CC Sabathia, SP - Yankees - 237.1 IP, 3.00 ERA, 8.72 K/9, 3.77 K/BB
9. Ben Zobrist, OF - Rays - .269/.353/.469, 20 HRs (Best Stat: 46 doubles)
10. Adrian Gonzalez, 1B - Red Sox - .338/.410/.548, 27 HRs (Best Stat: .380 BABIP)
Disclaimer: I believe that pitchers should have the ability to win MVPs. I just think this year, there were too many hitters who had ridiculously good seasons for Verlander to surpass them. For a pitcher to win an MVP, he either needs to be historically amazing (which Verlander wasn't) or be really good where there were no great hitters (which was not even close to true).
As far as best stat is concerned, it explained my decision making in some. With Verlander, you need to know two stats: BABIP against and LOB% which I put above. Verlander had a 80.3% LOB rate against the league average LOB% rate of 70-72%. Verlander's LOB% rate for his career is a "measly" 73.3%. In short, he usually doesn't leave 80.3% of baserunners stranded.
Also, in 2011, opposing hitters had a .236 batting average on balls in play against Verlander. Traditionally, hitters have a .300 average on balls in play. Basically when hitters put the ball in play, it will be a hit 30% of the time. This year, the average batting average on balls in play (BABIP) is .290 and Verlander's career BABIP against is .285. So you would expect his to be below the league average.
Also, in 2011, opposing hitters had a .236 batting average on balls in play against Verlander. Traditionally, hitters have a .300 average on balls in play. Basically when hitters put the ball in play, it will be a hit 30% of the time. This year, the average batting average on balls in play (BABIP) is .290 and Verlander's career BABIP against is .285. So you would expect his to be below the league average.
However, his BABIP against is so dramatically below league average that it is safe to say that a little luck was involved in his great performance. For comparison's sake, the top 5 pitchers in BABIP against last year where Trevor Cahill (.236; 2.97 ERA), Bronson Arroyo (.239, 3.88), Ted Lilly (.247, 3.62), Tim Hudson (.249; 2.83), and Jonathan Sanchez (.252; 2.07). Naturally, none of these were sustainable so in 2011, they all regressed: Cahill (.302, 4.16), Arroyo (.278, 5.71), Lilly (.260, 4.21), Hudson (.273, 3.39), and Sanchez (.272, 4.26). All five pitchers had a worse ERA when their BABIP against increased. And all five pitchers had their BABIPs dramatically get worse (at least a .013 increase).
Anyway, the point being, Verlander is not as good as his .236 BABIP indicated. If he were to have been a little less lucky, his ERA would not be 2.40 and he probably wouldn't have 24 wins (Though I do not support using wins as evidence in the first place). While his 2.40 ERA in the first place doesn't convince me he's better than any of the hitters, the fact that he probably got lucky in addition solidified my original position for me.
As for the actual choice, I felt Bautista was a far superior hitter to Ellsbury, who was unheralded despite having a great hitting line with elite defense at a premium position. I just couldn't get over the ridiculous disparity in OBP (.447 to .376) and slugging percentage (.608 to .552). Miguel Cabrera was about as good at hitting as Bautista but he plays 1B - and badly - while Ellsbury is one of the best defenders in center field.
Moving on to the National MVP, I've heard grumblings that Matt Kemp deserved it over Ryan Braun and it's hard to disagree. They had nearly identical hitting lines but Kemp plays in a pitcher's park (Braun in a hitter's park) and Kemp plays CF (Braun in LF). While Kemp's defense won him a Gold Glove, there are many defensive metrics that say he's not good at fielding. I'll go in between and say he's average which is still better than Braun's atrocious fielding. I don't see much argument for Braun over Kemp except maybe that he was on a winning team which is a preposterous argument given that if Braun and Kemp switched teams, the Dodgers would still not make the playoffs while the Brewers would still make the playoffs with Kemp. I won't argue any further on the matter but here's my Top 10 MVPs for the NL:
1. Matt Kemp, CF - Dodgers - .324/.399/.586, 39 HRs (Best Stat: 40 SBs)
2. Ryan Braun, LF - Brewers - .332/.397/.597, 33 HRs (Best Stat: .265 Isolated Power*)
3. Roy Halladay, SP - Phillies - 233.2 IP, 2.35 ERA, 8.47 K/9, 1.35 BB/9 (Best Stat: .298 BABIP against)
4. Joey Votto, 1B - Reds - .309/.416/.531, 29 HRs (Best Stat: 3rd place)
5. Clayton Kershaw, SP - Dodgers - 233.1 IP, 2.28 ERA, 9.57 K/9, 2.08 BB/9 (Best Stat: .269 BABIP against)
6. Jose Reyes, SS - Mets - .337/.384/.493, 7 HRs (Best Stat: 39 SBs)
7. Troy Tulowitzki, SS - Rockies - .302/.372/.544, 30 HRs (Best Stat: +7.3 UZR)
8. Justin Upton, RF - Diamondbacks - .289/.369/.529, 31 HRs (Best Stat: .319 BABIP)
9. Prince Fielder, 1B - Brewers - .299/.415/.566, 38 HRs (Best Stat: .267 Isolated Power)
10. Lance Berkman, RF - Cardinals - .301/.412/.547, 31 HRs (Best Stat: 15.7% BB rate)
I'll just jump straight into the NL Cy Young since the Top 10 kind of gave away my choice:
1. Roy Halladay, SP - Phillies - 233.2 IP, 2.35 ERA, 8.47 K/9, 1.35 BB/9 (Telling Stat: 6.3 K/BB)
2. Clayton Kershaw, SP - Dodgers - 233.1 IP, 2.28 ERA, 9.57 K/9, 2.08 BB/9 (Telling Stat: 4.6 K/BB)
3. Cliff Lee, SP - Phillies - 232.2 IP, 2.40 ERA, 9.21 K/9, 1.62 BB/9 (Telling Stat: 18 homers allowed)
4. Madison Bumgarner, SP - Giants - 204.2 IP, 3.21 ERA, 8.4 K/9, 2.02 BB/9 (Telling Stat: .322 BABIP against)
5. Matt Cain, SP - Giants - 221.2 IP, 2.88 ERA, 7.27 K/9, 2.56 BB/9 (Telling Stat: .260 BABIP against)
It's important to remember that in the context of my voting that I don't care how many wins a player has because he has no control over them. One just needs to look at the 13-13 Madison Bumgarner or the 11-9 Chris Carpenter to see that. Are they really just average pitchers? Obviously, they are not so I cannot accept that a win-loss record tells us much of anything.
To make sense of my decision then, note that Halladay, Kershaw, and Lee all have identical innings pitched with similar ERAs. None of them distinguish themselves all that much using the two stats that matter most (in my opinion). So, the next logical step to most people would be to look at wins. I disregard wins so my next step is to look at how many strikeouts a pitcher has, how many walks they have, and how many homers they have.
Right away I noticed Cliff Lee allowed 18 homers, three more than Kershaw and eight more than Halladay. He's out of the conversation now. The BBs and Ks are hard to distinguish by themselves, but if I look at their ratio of strikeouts to walk, the picture becomes much clearer. Halladay has a 6.3 K/BB while Kershaw's is 4.6 (which by the way is still amazing). When I added in the five homer differential and the fact that Halladay pitches in the notorious hitter's park Citizens Bank Park, then it was clearly Halladay who had to win the Cy Young. Obviously the voters disagreed and I can't complain a whole lot of their selection.
I won't waste my time explaining my AL Cy Young as it is obvious who I would pick. Justin Verlander, while I don't agree was the most valuable player, was the best pitcher. I won't even bother with a list or an explanation because this post is already too long. In summary, my four picks would be:
NL MVP: Matt Kemp
NL Cy Young: Roy Halladay
AL MVP: Jose Bautista
AL CY Young: Justin Verlander
Lastly, for fun, I'll post the fielders who rated most positively in Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) and the winners of the Gold Gloves UZR as well to compare the manager's selections with the metrics selections:
1B: Joey Votto (+7.4)
Best: Carlos Lee (+11.2)
2B: Brandon Phillips (+11.4)
Best: Phillips
3B: Placido Polance (+14)
Best: Polanco
SS: Troy Tulowitzki (+7.3)
Best: Clint Barmes (+7.9)
OF1: Gerrado Parra (+9.6)
OF2: Matt Kemp (-4.6)
OF3: Andre Either (+5.3)
Best1: Chris Young (+14.1)
Best2: Brian Bogusevic (+12.1)
Best3: Carlos Gomez (+12)
Catcher's defense is so hard to quantify and pitcher's defense isn't calculated by UZR so I just skipped them both. They made the right decision five times (Votto, Polanco, Phillips, Tulo, Parra) and the wrong decision with two outfield spots. Ethier was one of the worst defenders in the MLB the past three seasons before posting a positive UZR. Kemp is probably not that bad at defense but he's certainly not one of the top three.
Parra has been rated very well with UZR for the past few seasons so he's just a tremendous fielder. Carlos Lee is not likely that good at fielding as he did not play 1B all season so there's not a great enough sample. Phillips and Polanco were the best in both manager's minds and stats. Tulowitzki was close enough to Barmes that it's almost an insignificant difference.
As for the American League:
1B: Adrian Gonzalez (+10.7)
Best: Gonzalez
2B: Dustin Pedroia (+17.9)
Best: Pedroia
3B: Adrian Beltre (+11.2)
Best: Beltre
SS: Erick Aybar (+1.2)
Best: Alexei Ramirez (+11.9)
OF1: Alex Gordon (+9.6)
OF2: Nick Markakis (-4.7)
OF3: Jacoby Ellsbury (+15.6)
Best1: Brett Gardner (+25.8)
Best2: Ellsbury
Best3: Franklin Guttierez (+15.2)
Well there must be something about the infield that makes it easier than the outfield. There were four right this time with again one outfielder being correct. This time Erick Aybar was inexplicably chosen. Better than Derek Jeter but still odd. Nick Markakis is the other perplexing decision. I don't think he LOOKs like a Gold Glove defender, but managers make some odd decisions.
Gordon is acceptable and Ellsbury is spot on. Brett Gardner was far and away the best fielder. It's hard to believe the voters didn't see what the numbers said in this case because of how dramatically better Gardner was. Beltre, Gonzalez, and Pedroia were all the best in both departments.
Anyway, the point being, Verlander is not as good as his .236 BABIP indicated. If he were to have been a little less lucky, his ERA would not be 2.40 and he probably wouldn't have 24 wins (Though I do not support using wins as evidence in the first place). While his 2.40 ERA in the first place doesn't convince me he's better than any of the hitters, the fact that he probably got lucky in addition solidified my original position for me.
As for the actual choice, I felt Bautista was a far superior hitter to Ellsbury, who was unheralded despite having a great hitting line with elite defense at a premium position. I just couldn't get over the ridiculous disparity in OBP (.447 to .376) and slugging percentage (.608 to .552). Miguel Cabrera was about as good at hitting as Bautista but he plays 1B - and badly - while Ellsbury is one of the best defenders in center field.
Moving on to the National MVP, I've heard grumblings that Matt Kemp deserved it over Ryan Braun and it's hard to disagree. They had nearly identical hitting lines but Kemp plays in a pitcher's park (Braun in a hitter's park) and Kemp plays CF (Braun in LF). While Kemp's defense won him a Gold Glove, there are many defensive metrics that say he's not good at fielding. I'll go in between and say he's average which is still better than Braun's atrocious fielding. I don't see much argument for Braun over Kemp except maybe that he was on a winning team which is a preposterous argument given that if Braun and Kemp switched teams, the Dodgers would still not make the playoffs while the Brewers would still make the playoffs with Kemp. I won't argue any further on the matter but here's my Top 10 MVPs for the NL:
1. Matt Kemp, CF - Dodgers - .324/.399/.586, 39 HRs (Best Stat: 40 SBs)
2. Ryan Braun, LF - Brewers - .332/.397/.597, 33 HRs (Best Stat: .265 Isolated Power*)
3. Roy Halladay, SP - Phillies - 233.2 IP, 2.35 ERA, 8.47 K/9, 1.35 BB/9 (Best Stat: .298 BABIP against)
4. Joey Votto, 1B - Reds - .309/.416/.531, 29 HRs (Best Stat: 3rd place)
5. Clayton Kershaw, SP - Dodgers - 233.1 IP, 2.28 ERA, 9.57 K/9, 2.08 BB/9 (Best Stat: .269 BABIP against)
6. Jose Reyes, SS - Mets - .337/.384/.493, 7 HRs (Best Stat: 39 SBs)
7. Troy Tulowitzki, SS - Rockies - .302/.372/.544, 30 HRs (Best Stat: +7.3 UZR)
8. Justin Upton, RF - Diamondbacks - .289/.369/.529, 31 HRs (Best Stat: .319 BABIP)
9. Prince Fielder, 1B - Brewers - .299/.415/.566, 38 HRs (Best Stat: .267 Isolated Power)
10. Lance Berkman, RF - Cardinals - .301/.412/.547, 31 HRs (Best Stat: 15.7% BB rate)
I'll just jump straight into the NL Cy Young since the Top 10 kind of gave away my choice:
1. Roy Halladay, SP - Phillies - 233.2 IP, 2.35 ERA, 8.47 K/9, 1.35 BB/9 (Telling Stat: 6.3 K/BB)
2. Clayton Kershaw, SP - Dodgers - 233.1 IP, 2.28 ERA, 9.57 K/9, 2.08 BB/9 (Telling Stat: 4.6 K/BB)
3. Cliff Lee, SP - Phillies - 232.2 IP, 2.40 ERA, 9.21 K/9, 1.62 BB/9 (Telling Stat: 18 homers allowed)
4. Madison Bumgarner, SP - Giants - 204.2 IP, 3.21 ERA, 8.4 K/9, 2.02 BB/9 (Telling Stat: .322 BABIP against)
5. Matt Cain, SP - Giants - 221.2 IP, 2.88 ERA, 7.27 K/9, 2.56 BB/9 (Telling Stat: .260 BABIP against)
It's important to remember that in the context of my voting that I don't care how many wins a player has because he has no control over them. One just needs to look at the 13-13 Madison Bumgarner or the 11-9 Chris Carpenter to see that. Are they really just average pitchers? Obviously, they are not so I cannot accept that a win-loss record tells us much of anything.
To make sense of my decision then, note that Halladay, Kershaw, and Lee all have identical innings pitched with similar ERAs. None of them distinguish themselves all that much using the two stats that matter most (in my opinion). So, the next logical step to most people would be to look at wins. I disregard wins so my next step is to look at how many strikeouts a pitcher has, how many walks they have, and how many homers they have.
Right away I noticed Cliff Lee allowed 18 homers, three more than Kershaw and eight more than Halladay. He's out of the conversation now. The BBs and Ks are hard to distinguish by themselves, but if I look at their ratio of strikeouts to walk, the picture becomes much clearer. Halladay has a 6.3 K/BB while Kershaw's is 4.6 (which by the way is still amazing). When I added in the five homer differential and the fact that Halladay pitches in the notorious hitter's park Citizens Bank Park, then it was clearly Halladay who had to win the Cy Young. Obviously the voters disagreed and I can't complain a whole lot of their selection.
I won't waste my time explaining my AL Cy Young as it is obvious who I would pick. Justin Verlander, while I don't agree was the most valuable player, was the best pitcher. I won't even bother with a list or an explanation because this post is already too long. In summary, my four picks would be:
NL MVP: Matt Kemp
NL Cy Young: Roy Halladay
AL MVP: Jose Bautista
AL CY Young: Justin Verlander
Lastly, for fun, I'll post the fielders who rated most positively in Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) and the winners of the Gold Gloves UZR as well to compare the manager's selections with the metrics selections:
1B: Joey Votto (+7.4)
Best: Carlos Lee (+11.2)
2B: Brandon Phillips (+11.4)
Best: Phillips
3B: Placido Polance (+14)
Best: Polanco
SS: Troy Tulowitzki (+7.3)
Best: Clint Barmes (+7.9)
OF1: Gerrado Parra (+9.6)
OF2: Matt Kemp (-4.6)
OF3: Andre Either (+5.3)
Best1: Chris Young (+14.1)
Best2: Brian Bogusevic (+12.1)
Best3: Carlos Gomez (+12)
Catcher's defense is so hard to quantify and pitcher's defense isn't calculated by UZR so I just skipped them both. They made the right decision five times (Votto, Polanco, Phillips, Tulo, Parra) and the wrong decision with two outfield spots. Ethier was one of the worst defenders in the MLB the past three seasons before posting a positive UZR. Kemp is probably not that bad at defense but he's certainly not one of the top three.
Parra has been rated very well with UZR for the past few seasons so he's just a tremendous fielder. Carlos Lee is not likely that good at fielding as he did not play 1B all season so there's not a great enough sample. Phillips and Polanco were the best in both manager's minds and stats. Tulowitzki was close enough to Barmes that it's almost an insignificant difference.
As for the American League:
1B: Adrian Gonzalez (+10.7)
Best: Gonzalez
2B: Dustin Pedroia (+17.9)
Best: Pedroia
3B: Adrian Beltre (+11.2)
Best: Beltre
SS: Erick Aybar (+1.2)
Best: Alexei Ramirez (+11.9)
OF1: Alex Gordon (+9.6)
OF2: Nick Markakis (-4.7)
OF3: Jacoby Ellsbury (+15.6)
Best1: Brett Gardner (+25.8)
Best2: Ellsbury
Best3: Franklin Guttierez (+15.2)
Well there must be something about the infield that makes it easier than the outfield. There were four right this time with again one outfielder being correct. This time Erick Aybar was inexplicably chosen. Better than Derek Jeter but still odd. Nick Markakis is the other perplexing decision. I don't think he LOOKs like a Gold Glove defender, but managers make some odd decisions.
Gordon is acceptable and Ellsbury is spot on. Brett Gardner was far and away the best fielder. It's hard to believe the voters didn't see what the numbers said in this case because of how dramatically better Gardner was. Beltre, Gonzalez, and Pedroia were all the best in both departments.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)