Dissecting the Nationals Rotation
For anyone out there not following the rise of the Nationals, Washington has some decent starting pitching. This was not always the case. Last January, I took the 2010 Nats starting pitchers and turned them into a theoretical rotation which looked like this:
| #1 Starter | #2 Starter | #3 Starter | #4 Starter | #5 Starter |
| 3.36 ERA | 4.01 ERA | 4.77 ERA | 5.15 ERA | 6.02 ERA |
That #1 starter was half pre-injury Stephen Strasburg and half vintage Livan Hernandez. Post-injury Jordan Zimmermann slotted in at #3, and recovering Jason Marquis anchored the bottom of the #5 slot. Things were not pretty, but there was hope, and some of that hope was realized in 2011:
| #1 Starter | #2 Starter | #3 Starter | #4 Starter | #5 Starter |
| 2.71 ERA | 3.52 ERA | 3.83 ERA | 4.03 ERA | 4.59 ERA |
This year, post-injury Strasburg, Ross Detwiler and Jordan Zimmermann put together a solid #1 slot for the Nats, and the numbers for the rotation should be even better next year across the line. Take the current rotation, cut the worst pitchers, add a free agent, and stir. Now think about it. If you are a Nats fan, it should give you warm, fuzzy feelings. Lots more after the break.
Here is this year’s full table, showing which pitcher made which starting slot based on ERA:
| GS | ERA | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | |
| Brad Peacock | 2 | 0.75 | 2 | ||||
| Stephen Strasburg | 5 | 1.50 | 5 | ||||
| Ross Detwiler | 10 | 3.00 | 10 | ||||
| Jordan Zimmermann | 26 | 3.18 | 15 | 11 | |||
| John Lannan | 33 | 3.70 | 21 | 12 | |||
| Tom Milone | 5 | 3.81 | 5 | ||||
| Jason Marquis | 20 | 3.95 | 15 | 5 | |||
| Tom Gorzelanny | 15 | 4.03 | 15 | ||||
| Chien-Ming Wang | 11 | 4.04 | 11 | ||||
| Livan Hernandez | 29 | 4.47 | 1 | 28 | |||
| Yunesky Maya | 5 | 5.23 | 5 | ||||
| ERA | 2.71 | 3.52 | 3.83 | 4.03 | 4.59 |
Both Detwiler (#2 slot in 2010) and Zimmermann (#3 slot in 2010) moved up in the rotation from last year. Lannan and Marquis also both improved on 2010, and new-comer Chien-Ming Wang slotted in at #4 coming off rehab. The #5 slot went all Cuban this year, and faces cuts.
Looking forward, the first positive takeaway is that the players who are not going to return all come from the bottom of that list. Of the #4/#5 starters, only Wang and Maya are likely to return. Wang, of course, is expected to pitch better in 2012 than he did in 2011, with his rehab out of the way. Maya is not expected to improve, but may get his five starts like he does every year for the sake of tradition. (Yes, Gorzelanny will be back, but not as a starter. And yes, Rizzo should eat Maya’s contract sooner than later.)
This is the same strategy the Nats employed last year, when they ditched every #4/#5 starter except for Jason Marquis and Maya. The gains may be more incremental in 2012, but they will hopefully still be substantial.
While the bottom of the rotation gets trimmed, the top of the rotation is expected to grow, with a full season of Strasburg hopefully pushing Zimmermann into the #2 slot and Lannan down to compete with Wang for the #3 slot.
Who gets the #5 job next year? If nobody new is signed, it may fall to Detwiler (a #1 this year), but reportedly Rizzo is working hard to make sure that that doesn’t happen.
If Mark Buehrle is signed, he would be competing for that #3 slot (3.59 ERA in 2011, 3.83 lifetime). So would Roy Oswalt (3.69 ERA in 2011, 3.21 lifetime) or Edwin Jackson (3.58 ERA in 2011, 4.46 lifetime). C.J. Wilson (2.94 ERA in 2011, 3.60 lifetime) would try to compete for one of the top two slots, and Yu Darvish looks like he would fit well somewhere in the #1 to #4 slot range.
The Rotation in xFIP
Now I am going to go over the same ground again using xFIP instead of ERA. To refresh your memories, xFIP attempts to measure only the parts of the game that a pitcher can control (strikeouts, walks, HBPs and HRs) and put them in an ERA-like scale. It tries to get rid of factors like fielding and luck, and overall correlates well with future ERA. It is not perfect though. For example, extreme groundball pitchers like Lannan often look worse than they are using this metric.
Back to the numbers, here is the 2010 rotation using xFIP:
| #1 Starter | #2 Starter | #3 Starter | #4 Starter | #5 Starter |
| 3.24 xFIP | 4.36 xFIP | 4.59 xFIP | 4.82 xFIP | 5.34 xFIP |
The 2010 rotation has Craig Stammen with Strasburg in the #1 slot, Lannan and Livo holding down the middle, and Ross Detwiler down in the #5 slot.
And here is the 2011 rotation:
| #1 Starter | #2 Starter | #3 Starter | #4 Starter | #5 Starter |
| 3.57 xFIP | 3.99 xFIP | 4.15 xFIP | 4.25 xFIP | 4.47 xFIP |
When the #5 starters of 2011 outperform the #3 starters of 2010 in both ERA and xFIP, it is a very good sign for the team.
Here, then, is the full table for the 2011 rotation by xFIP:
| GS | xFIP | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | |
| Stephen Strasburg | 5 | 2.43 | 5 | ||||
| Jordan Zimmermann | 26 | 3.78 | 26 | ||||
| Jason Marquis | 20 | 3.96 | 1 | 19 | |||
| Tom Gorzelanny | 15 | 4.03 | 13 | 2 | |||
| Ross Detwiler | 10 | 4.08 | 10 | ||||
| Chien-Ming Wang | 11 | 4.17 | 11 | ||||
| John Lannan | 33 | 4.24 | 9 | 24 | |||
| Livan Hernandez | 29 | 4.28 | 8 | 21 | |||
| Yunesky Maya | 5 | 4.44 | 5 | ||||
| Tom Milone | 5 | 4.59 | 5 | ||||
| Brad Peacock | 2 | 6.27 | 2 | ||||
| ERA | 3.57 | 3.99 | 4.15 | 4.25 | 4.47 |
Strasburg rocks. Back in 2010, in limited action, Strasburg led the majors in xFIP by a starting pitcher. This year, he was beaten by a rookie named Matt Moore who only threw five innings (and who loses the xFIP title if you count his postseason performance). This is hype worth believing.
Ranked by xFIP, Detwiler drops to the #3 slot, allowing Zimmermann and Marquis slide up to #1 and #2 respectively. Lannan also drops a slot compared to ERA. Gorzelanny, a #4 starter by ERA, slots in at #2, but it is unlikely to buy him a starting spot in 2011. His stats here include his time in the bullpen, where he pitched much better than he ever did as a starter. The #5 slot maintains its Cuban flavor, but makes room for rookies Milone and Peacock.
I should probably talk a little more about the mysterious Brad Peacock and his small sample size problem. He tops the ERA list, but is a mere footnote in the xFIP list. He does have plenty of potential, but it is probably best to think of him fitting in somewhere between those two extremes. These numbers are a curse of SSS, though some players like Strasburg and Maya are consistent year after year even with SSS. I will try to address this disparity in a bit, but first here is a look at the free agents and how they would theoretically slot in using xFIP.
Buehrle (4.14 xFIP in 2011, 4.22 lifetime) would slide in ahead of Lannan this time, and with Gorzelanny and Marquis out of the picture the #3 slot is open for the taking (if Detwiler isn’t pitching). Oswalt (3.95 xFIP in 2011, 3.58 lifetime) slots in at #2, and could put pressure on Zimmermann there. Edwin Jackson (3.73 xFIP in 2011, 4.38 lifetime) would similarly be in the running for that #2 or #3 slot.
C.J. Wilson (3.41 xFIP in 2011, 3.79 lifetime) would come in ready to push Jordan Zimmermann to the #3 slot. Yu Darvish is still a wildcard, but for some reason I feel obligated to mention him despite my inability to predict his future production.
It looks like Rizzo is determined to make Lannan the #5 pitcher in the rotation as soon as possible. This could leave the Nats with a 3.70 ERA and a 4.24 xFIP out of the #5 slot. Cue the warm, fuzzy feelings if you’re a Nats fan.
The State of the Rotation
I am going to finish up today by averaging the two tables above. It should provide a nice quick way to rank the pitchers’ performances in 2011. Did Ross Detwiler pitch like a #1 slot pitcher (ERA) or a #3 slot pitcher (xFIP)? I will average the two, and call him a #2 slot pitcher within the context of the 2011 Nats pitching staff.
| Slot # | |
| Stephen Strasburg | 1 |
| Jordan Zimmermann | 1.2 |
| Ross Detwiler | 2 |
| Jason Marquis | 2.6 |
| Tom Gorzelanny | 3 |
| John Lannan | 3 |
| Brad Peacock | 3 |
| Chien-Ming Wang | 3.5 |
| Tom Milone | 4 |
| Livan Hernandez | 4.9 |
| Yunesky Maya | 5 |
All this information will hopefully be useful to anyone trying to build the Nats rotation of the future. To improve in 2012, this rotation needs two pitchers coming back from injuries to pitch a lot and pitch well. The hole in the rotation left by Marquis and Gorzelanny represents 35 games of solid pitching. If both Strasburg and Zimmermann stay healthy all season, that hole will be filled. If Chien-Ming Wang stays healthy, he will fill the hole left by Livo.
That gives the Nationals two top tier pitchers and two mid tier pitchers. The last slot will either be filled via a free agent or be filled from within. The free agent options are mostly mid tier options, though most of these options that have the potential to outperform their present competition. C.J. Wilson with his big price tag is a top tier option (with possibly Yu Darvish), that has the potential to greatly deepen the rotation.
The options within the system are Ross Detwiler, Brad Peacock and Tommy Milone. All have promise but come with little certainty. Detwiler showed up his critics with ten solid starts, but it was a breakout year for him. Can he do it again? Peacock has the most promise, but he is no Strasburg and will probably get more seasoning at AAA. Milone showed the ability to compete at the major league level, but did not blow anyone away. Until Rizzo shows his hand and decides whether or not to buy in the free agent market, nobody will know how much confidence the organization places in these young arms.
Thinking About the Future
Here are some things to consider when thinking about the future of this rotation:
Strasburg is under team control through 2015.
Zimmermann is under team control through 2015.
Lannan is under team control through 2013.
Wang is signed through 2012.
Detwiler is under team control through 2015.
The team is going to continue to replace its worst pitchers over the next few years. Does it make sense to sign another short term contract with an aging mid-level pitcher?
In contrast, how would the addition of a top-tier pitcher make the Nats rotation look for the next half decade?
If the Nats expect to be contending within a few years, when is the best time to find out which of the young guys have the stuff to be part of that future? Do you test them in 2011, or wait until an injury opens a spot?
Will someone like Peacock be ready to take Lannan’s spot in 2014, or Wang’s spot in 2013, or even that last spot in 2012 if no free agent is signed?
My personal take is that it does not make sense for the Nationals to sign anyone who is not top tier (Wilson, Darvish) this offseason. I could understand, though, if Rizzo decides to put together the best rotation money can reasonably buy to make the Nationals look more like contenders this year even if it blocks a young arm or two.
The Nationals rotation has a way to go before it is ready to go toe to toe with what the Phillies trot out every day, but it is certainly ready to start competing seriously for wins in 2012.
38 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Outstanding stuff
I imagine this took quite a bit of time, and I, for one, thank you for helping to add to my knowledge.
Some thoughts:
1) Wang and a veteran starter make sense because Rizzo expects some of his recent draft picks to pan out. Counting on Peacock next year seems aggressive, although I’d love to see him in the rotation. Rizzo may not be giving Milone but so much respect either and Milone could be the first man out of Syracuse next year should we have injury. Between Peacock, Meyer and Solis, Rizzo has to be expecting that one of these guys turn out to be at least a no. 3 arm by 2013. He’s got to expect that he’ll add another in-house arm by 2014. Hopefully, that means we’re out of the John Lannan business and into the more power arm business by 2014. All in all, it’s so nice to have young, projectable choices for a change.
2) Don’t forget that ‘aging-midlevel pitchers’ are also prospective trade pieces. Yes, we’re making progress and we may stay in the race longer next year, but I think it’s a lot to expect us to pass both the Phillies and Braves next year. A veteran guy like Oswalt becomes a tradeable asset in the event that he pitches well, and we don’t contend. Both Wang and another veteran starter could be trade pieces during the season much like Marquis was at the end of this year.
3) Addition of a “top-tier pitcher”? I don’t see where that’s coming from at the moment. Another top-tier pitcher and we’re certainly a contending team if Harper is what he projects to be.
4) Wait until injury opens up a spot. I feel that Rizzo believes you have to master all of the levels. Milone did that last year, but his stuff probably scares Rizzo as more than a fourth or fifth starter. Why not get a veteran to be a third starter instead and bump Lannan down? Make Milone first man up.
5) Peacock’s an interesting one. I’m not sure we’re completely sure whether he can pitch enough innings with good control to be a top flight starter yet. I think it’s more likely a recent draftee, ideally lefty Solis, who replaces Lannan at some point.
I agree with you very much on this post, and I’ll be fascinated to see what else Rizzo cooks up in the Hot Stove League.
Waiting to bang my drum in parades for the Nats and Caps.
Tradeable pitchers
There’s approximately a 0% chance that Oswalt will sign a contract without a no-trade clause. We’d be foolish to look at him as a guy that can be dumped when we’re through with him, because his career has earned him a better deal than that. If he can’t get it from us, he’ll get it elsewhere. It’s not like we’re high on his list of places to play as it is. He’s not Jason Marquis, he’s Roy-freaking-Oswalt, and he’s a legitimate #1 in a lot of rotations.
Beuhrle MAY be signable without a no-trade, but I have doubts about that too.
Good write up.
Ross Detwiler is under team control through 2015. According to baseball-reference.com
Look here
But he's out options, fyi
We Aim to Maim - JoseRijo es mi Amigo aka court
by rfk428 on Nov 16, 2011 8:19 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Thanks for the correction there. The fact that he’s out of options is one reason people speculate that Rizzo is collecting arms in preparation for a trade for an outfielder. No clue whether Rizzo would choose to trade Lannan or Det or Peacock or Milone.
Detwiler or Lannan
Milone and Peacock won’t bring us the CF we’re looking for without adding other pieces we’d miss.
If Rizzo’s trading for a CF, I’d expect Lannan or Detwiler to be included in the deal, along with one of Peacock and Milone, and one of our trade-eligible AA/AAA bats not named Harper.
Nice work, Roach
So just going off GS for 2011, the xFIP rotation would roughly work out to Strasburg 5 / JZimm 26 / +a smidge of Gorzelanny 2 at #1, Marquis 20 / Gorzelanny 13 at #2, Lannan 33 at #3, Detwiler 10 / Wang 11 / part of Livo 8 at #4, and Livo 18 / Milone 5 / Maya 5 / Peacock 2 at #5.
For 2012, JZimm gets turned loose for the full season at #1, but Strasburg will still need to be supplemented for approximately 5-12 GS at #2 (Peacock?). The production of Marquis & Livo needs to be replaced, which is why Rizzo is looking at guys like Buehrle / Oswalt / Darvish as a #3; I believe like you seem to, that Gorzelanny can’t sustain high-level production over an entire season. Lannan slots nicely as a #4, with the #5 spot held by Wang / Milone / Gorzelanny, imo.
"Things are going great, and they're only gettin' better..." Timbuk3
Oops...
Completely forgot Detwiler; He could easily be the Strasburg supplement coming off a LR role to start the season. And auto-format has pushed my # of GS into bold red apparently because I placed them in brackets [!].
"Things are going great, and they're only gettin' better..." Timbuk3
The number of pitcher making starts.
Nats had 11 pitcher make starts in 2011. That is down from 14 in 2010. This is progress. On average there are 9 pitcher make start per team.
Pitchers that started games for the Nat in 2010 but not 2010: Scott Olsen, Garrett Mock, Luis Atilano, Craig Stammen, J.D. Martin, Miguel Batista and Matt Chico.
always sad to see a list like this....only Stammenator still in the conversation and as a long reliever?
"Even when I retire and live here in Houston, I don't want to go watch American League baseball." Lance Berkman......LBIMH...
by cat daddy3000 on Nov 16, 2011 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
Don't be too sad
Stammen had 19 starts with WSH in 2010, and three more in SYR, and was possibly the #4 SP overall for the season. in 2011, he had 25 starts in SYR, but appeared purely in relief for WSH. Just another sign that the pitching is getting better in DC.
"Things are going great, and they're only gettin' better..." Timbuk3
I'd be happy for Craig is he goes long out of the 'pen and spot starts....
but no more, MOCK’D ?……….Kid Chico gone?….all those guys had our hopes once upon a time…
"Even when I retire and live here in Houston, I don't want to go watch American League baseball." Lance Berkman......LBIMH...
by cat daddy3000 on Nov 16, 2011 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
I hear you
I had hopes for Chico recovering to the point of being a viable LR-Spot starter last year, but was proved wrong; Live & learn, I suppose. As for Mock, he’d been my pet peeve on the 40-man since the end of 2009; Nothing personal against him, per se, but I personally rejoiced at the announcement of his release.
I still think Stammen has some talent, and a good head on his shoulders as well. He’s smart enough to adapt to whatever role he’s offered in the orginization, imo.
"Things are going great, and they're only gettin' better..." Timbuk3
I think Milone stands an equal chance of Peacock to be a solid 3
Don’t get me wrong. I hope that Peacock turns out to be a true TOR pitcher. But outside of a great year (and I mean truly) at AA this year, he hasn’t been all that impressive. He was incredibly hittable during his cup of coffee this September. Now, a great deal of that won’t show through because he was buoyed by an incredible defense giving him a .184 BABIP. However, he had more walks (6) than strike-outs(4). It is crazy to try to draw any statistical inferences from 12 innings of work, but I don’t understand why some many people list Peacock ahead of Milone, who has succeeded for at every level for the last 4 years without a hiccup.
I know power is always more flashy than control hence why Henri Rodriguez, the reliever who is in the top 5 of all-MLB in wild pitches, still has a roster spot. But if control was measured on a radar gun, Milone would be throwing in triple digits. He’s given up 88 BB in his entire professional career (approx. 550IP). By contrast, John Lannan threw 76BB this season (186 IP).
I don’t think that it would be impossible for Milone to be the next Mark Buehrle and who wouldn’t want a 4.4 WAR pitcher as their number 3.
It's not impossible but
Mark Buerhle is notable because he stood out despite his lack of velocity. Just because he’s an exception doesn’t make the rule of thumb any less valid: pitchers with that little stuff (87.9 mph average fastball) don’t succeed in the big leagues most of the time. It’s a simple fact that it’s always going to be easier to hit 87 than it is 95.
Maybe he does succeed. Certainly he deserves a good shot—and one before Peacock—but all else being equal, with both of them having made only a few MLB starts, Peacock is always going to have more upside (and thus be the more valuable prospect) because his fastball can hit the mid-90s. Simply put, pitchers with that type of stuff succeed more often than those with Milone’s, which makes him—arguably—the safer bet.
by Armless Penguin on Nov 17, 2011 12:23 AM EST up reply actions
Peacock was "incredibly hittable"?
He averaged 5.3 H/9 which is pretty good in my book. He had a 2.7 K/BB ratio in five years in the minors. I very much believe he has a higher ceiling than Milone, who could perhaps be a guy that defies expectations like Lannan.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
The 5.3 hits with a .184 BABIP is not good.
Peacock pitched through 48 batters. 13 reached base. He struck out 4. The other 31 guys put the ball in play, and were beat by the defense. Assuming BABIP of .300, he would have 8.6 h/9. I’m fine with letting the defense do some work, hence my defense of Lannan and Milone. Now perhaps Peacock has found a secret to inducing easy out pop-ups, but if so we should praise that break-though rather than his heater.
Second, Milone often draws Lannan comparisons, but his numbers are better at every level. Largely, I think because he doesn’t give up the walks that Lannan does.
8.6h/9 is pretty decent as well, no? and maybe lannan has to walk more at the major league level since his opposition is like… really, really good. Maybe Milone will need to avoid more hitters at this level too, possibly.
My point exactly.
Even if you presume that it makes sense to multiply a H/9 by .300/BABIP to find an “expected” H/9 (a notion I find highly dubious), the value you get is still not bad for a ML pitcher. 8.6 is not jaw-dropping, but the league average H/9 for qualified starters last year was 8.7.
The other thing I liked was Peacock’s pitches passed the eye-test. He baffled hitters, and a few umpires, too. It was clear early on he was surprised by how often he was getting squeezed. I think that sort of thing will even itself out in time, and he’ll get the calls for the knee-buckling curves on the corner like he should.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
Couple things
First, I was comparing minor league BB numbers when I said Milone gave up fewer walks.
Second, Peacocks h/9 numbers are average, not good. However, it is actually worse than it seems because he is a flyball pitcher. Pitch-to-contact generally doesn’t work out so well with with a groundball rate in 30’s. Unless of course, Peacock has found a way to get batters to hit shallow pop-ups without giving up a ton of HR.
Last, I should appologize. I don’t mean to attack one of our players. Peacock has shown a great deal of talent at AA and I hope that he continues to improve. All my statements were meant to do was show that Milone has a more consistent track record and shouldn’t be cast aside because his velocity isn’t 2 mph faster.
I don't think of Peacock as a PTC guy
(If I did, I wouldn’t be defending him at this moment). His minor league strikeout rates the last three years trended very well: 6.3, 9.4, 10.9. His K/BB ratios have gotten better, too: 2.5, 3.2, 3.8. Those don’t strike me as PTC-type numbers. He may be a fly ball pitcher (I don’t know that) but he’s not been particularly prone to the home run (.8/9IP the last three years).
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
I agree he's not a PTC guy
But there are plenty of PTC guys out there to drive up the average H/9. So having a strike-out pitcher who gives up average hits isn’t so grand. And if you compare his FIP and xFIP, you’ll see why I consider him a fly ball pitcher.
high ceilings
I think that when you’re comparing hs/college prospects, or low minors prospects, the “high ceiling” thing makes sense to worry about – you’re projecting out years ahead with uncertain development, so the guy with the bigger upside is the better prospect. But when you are comparing 24year olds with 4-5 years of professional (minor league) records to examine, that record has got to matter. Because you have actual results to look at, not just guesswork about how a guy’s stuff projects for the future. So yes, i would not be too impressed by a lefty with an 87 mph fastball who dominated in college or at low A ball – but when for three years in a row the guy is the best starter on his staff, pitching just as well (maybe better) as he moves up the ladder, racking up a 9.6 k/bb ratio at AAA, at that point i dont worry about his “ceiling” not being high. At that point i say, wow, this guy has been remarkably consistent for a young pitcher and he really deserves the chance to show he can do it in the big leagues, because if he can I’ve got myself another mark buehrle for a fraction of the price,
Don’t get me wrong – i am impressed by peacock too. But i think cnsistency is greatly underrated as a predictor – milone has been way more consistently successful as a professional than peacock (or detwiler, for that matter).
The other reason that I like Peacock better is that I feel that is floor is hard throwing arm out of the pen. Milone is 4th starter or bust in my opinion with his velocity. Basically it comes down to K’s versus control. At Peacock’s age (and remember he wasn’t a pitcher until the minors for all intents and purposes), I think the K rate sticks and the control improves with experience or with a shift to the bullpen. Milone isn’t going to walk people, but can he get Ks from major league hitters? Does he have to give in to major league hitters to avoid walks?
I don’t think either one is on the major league roster to start the year, regardless. Rizzo seems quite fixed on getting that other veteran arm.
Waiting to bang my drum in parades for the Nats and Caps.
Velocity does not equal good
“At Peacock’s age (and remember he wasn’t a pitcher until the minors for all intents and purposes), I think the K rate sticks and the control improves with experience or with a shift to the bullpen. Milone isn’t going to walk people, but can he get Ks from maj
or league hitters? Does he have to give in to major league hitters to avoid walks?”
This is the sort of comment that I am complaining about. Milone is a year older (and a year ahead in development) yet for some unstated reason, he’s going to lose his K rate, which is about good as Peacock’s (9.4 v. 10.86). Meanwhile, Peacock’s going to gain control without losing velocity. In answer to your question, can Milone get Ks from MLB hitters? Yes, he can and did through 5 starts he posted 5.19 K/9 rate, better than Pecock’s 3.0 K/9. Now, of course, both sample sizes were miniscule and shouldn’t be regarded for anything more than an audition. All I am saying is that Milone deserves a shot. Maybe he won’t pan out, but he’s definately earned a shot. Milone’s ceiling isn’t a 4th starter. He could be the next Buerhle or better. Velocity isn’t everything. Greg Maddux hardly ever broached 90mph, but I haven’t heard any complaints about that yet.
Maddux lived on a super-human ability
to add and subtract velocity at will, and he had pinpoint control.
Milone’s stuff doesn’t usually translate well to the bigs. Could Milone end up like Buehrle? Perhaps, but it’s not likely at all. A more likely outcome is that he’s a 3.8 ERA guy that does the same sorts of things that Lannan does: gives up hits but gets a lot of grounders, meaning he gives up some runs most of the time but not a lot of runs most of the time. Such a pitcher is fine for middle or back end of the rotation, but he’ll not typically fare well against the Hallidays, Lees, and Hamels of the world.
Just my opinion, of course.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
by RobBobS on Nov 17, 2011 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Maddux was a great pitcher who took advantage of strike zone that you could drive a Mac truck through
I know there are a few Nats' pitchers who feel cheated
because Eric Gregg isn’t umpiring any longer.
Rob
-- In baseball we trust.
Yeah, this is pretty much where I’m coming from. I like Peacock’s floor better than Milone’s floor a bunch too.
I guess I’m hoping for more power pitchers who can strike people out and put more pressure on the defense. I think we’ve seen close to Milone’s ceiling and haven’t seen Peacock’s ceiling yet.
Waiting to bang my drum in parades for the Nats and Caps.
Hey SD!
I’m not sure how one can have an opinion regarding a pitchers floor or ceiling or mezzanine for that matter when they have next to no MLB experience. Are you saying that pitchers who don’t possess overpowering stuff, by definition, don’t have a high ceiling? Please advise. Over.
P.S. I too am glad to see the Prodigal Son back. Although from what I understand about prodigal sons, they have a lot more fun when they are away than they do when they are home (so to speak).
I’m saying that I feel that stuff like K rate and scouting reports translate into projectability to some extent. There are always guys that buck the system and to this point Milone has been one of them with his lack of velocity but ability to get guys out. Don’t you feel that he’s more likely to get a guy looking and complaining about a pitch on the black? Couldn’t MLB hitters be more able to foul off those pitches and get him to be wild within the strikezone? I just don’t know what else he can learn to be much better than what we saw in DC this year. I like it. I just don’t think that it’s much more than a fourth starter, a John Lannan with more control but less velocity.
With Peacock, the half season he had at Harrisburg really intrigues me. I want to see whether he can back it up or not with a strong season at Syracuse next year. He had the control at Harrisburg. He walked too many guys at Syracuse and MLB.
They are both good prospects; I just like the swing and miss and nasty curve ball of Peacock better.
I think it’s justifiable how many prospect lists have Peacock ahead of Milone. I think Milone will get a chance to prove the doubters wrong first, though, as one of the first guys called up to Washington this year, much like Detwiler was, should starters struggle.
Waiting to bang my drum in parades for the Nats and Caps.
by souldrummer on Nov 18, 2011 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
A correction: xFIP does not measure home runs.
You said:
To refresh your memories, xFIP attempts to measure only the parts of the game that a pitcher can control (strikeouts, walks, HBPs and HRs) and put them in an ERA-like scale
xFIP differs from FIP in that it assumes that every pitcher gives up a league-average number of HRs, regardless of how many home runs they actually gave up. FIP is calculated by the actual number of HRs a pitcher gives up. That’s why Peacock has an xFIP of 6.27 but a FIP of 3.86—he gave up no HRs in 2011. xFIP makes the assumption that pitchers cannot control how many HRs they give up, and that variation from pitcher to pitcher over a season is because of random chance, not skill.
That said, great post. Looks like you weighted ERAs in your rollups by number of games—might be interesting to do it by IP, too (a starter who goes more innings/start should influence the ERA of the composite “starter” more). One of the flaws I keep seeing in Nats starters in 2011 is short starts (I know, people were rehabbing, but it stresses the bullpen either way).
"If you ain't got the pants, you ain't got a chance." --PerryMason (on the sartorial component of being a Real Ballplayer)
Yeah sorry, I was going for the short explanation there, not for the long and more accurate version there. :)
What I described was in fact FIP, since I did not want to take several more sentences to try to explain the averaging of the HRs and how it affects pitchers like Clippard in ways beyond how FIP affects pitchers like Lannan. I would have left the explanation out entirely if I didn’t feel some readers would like having some idea of what they were looking at. I did hyperlink the first reference of xFIP for those more curious than that.
I did seriously consider using IP rather than games, but it adds more work and makes making mistakes that much easier. The extra leg work would not have affected this post, but since I still plan on running the numbers for the rest of the league again I did not want to set myself up overburden myself.

by 





























