Master Index of Archived Threads


But wait. There's more.

Edgy MD Dec 28 2014 09:21 PM

Zach Wheeler. He was solid last year for the Mets. But we ain't hoping for solid. For a full season, well, he stayed healthy, and acquitted himself honorably for pitcher of 24 years, walkies included. But it ain't gonna carry a team to the pennant. G IP BF W L W-L% ERA GF CG SHO SV H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP WHIP SO9 BB/9 SO/BB HR/9 BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP BAbip 32 185.33 794 11 11 .500 3.54 0 1 1 0 167 84 73 14 79 3 187 11 0 9 1.327 9.1 3.84 2.37 .680 .240 .326 .352 .678 245 20 .307 But wait. There's more. G IP BF W L W-L% ERA GF CG SHO SV H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP WHIP SO9 BB/9 SO/BB HR/9 BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP BAbip 19 108.33 458 5 8 .385 3.90 0 1 1 0 101 51 47 7 46 1 105 4 0 7 1.357 8.7 3.82 2.28 .582 .253 .333 .358 .691 143 12 .323 13 77.00 336 6 3 .667 3.04 0 0 0 0 66 33 26 7 33 2 82 7 0 2 1.286 9.6 3.86 2.48 .818 .223 .315 .345 .660 102 8 .285 That's the season divided into two halves (which aren't halves at all, but a season un-naturally split by the All Star break.) I think we'd all take that second half split over 30 games. So what I mean to ask is... is that for real? Is that perhaps as indicative or possibly even more indicative of what we might expect out of him in 2015?

Zvon Dec 28 2014 10:50 PM Re: But wait. There's more.

I love it when there's more. It's real, cause he did it. Can he do it again, and sustain it for a longer period? We'll see, but I say yes. I think he excels with Harvey and deGrom on either side of him.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 29 2014 01:17 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

Numbers under the hood say it may be comparatively fluky (significantly lower BABIP in that second half); but then, maybe it isn't (more flies and slightly more infield flies over the same period could explain that bit). Still, if it was an adjustment that produced those skyward corn-cans... is it precisely reproducible?

Edgy MD Dec 29 2014 05:28 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

I don't know the process by which Harvey and deGrom make other pitchers better. It could happen, but that's some speculative science. It's notable that Wheels didn't curtail his walks. His strikeouts up-ticked a small amount, but so did his homers allowed. The real change is the batting average against. I think that's too frequently dismissed --- the McCracken thesis has holes and always did --- but it's obviously somewhat more luck-dependent than seeing his homers or walks go down or his strikeouts go up.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 29 2014 06:56 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

I accept that Wheeler earned his having-gotten-better-ness, even if it's not necessarily provable, because I think a part of his deal is just getting comfortable with the shit he's got. No guarantee it continues, but you figure that among him, Flores, deGrom, d'Arnaud, Syndergaard, Montero, etc etc, at least some of them will get better.

Ceetar Dec 29 2014 07:13 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't know the process by which Harvey and deGrom make other pitchers better. It could happen, but that's some speculative science. It's notable that Wheels didn't curtail his walks. His strikeouts up-ticked a small amount, but so did his homers allowed. The real change is the batting average against. I think that's too frequently dismissed --- the McCracken thesis has holes and always did --- but it's obviously somewhat more luck-dependent than seeing his homers or walks go down or his strikeouts go up. babip is less useful for pitchers as I understand it. Also takes a little while to stabilize, so even smaller samples are somewhat less useful. But mostly, that's out of Wheeler's control. Though Tulo over Flores would definitely help it. I think the big difference is the K rate and HR rate. There's indication that HR rate has some measure of luck. Fly balls may leave the yard in a warm august with a breeze, but die in a cooler April. (xFIP takes this into account, whereas FIP doesn't, though Wheeler's xFIP and FIP are basically the same) His FIP went up slightly the second half, while his xFIP remained about the same. Harder to suddenly strike more guys out, that's usually somewhat indicative of skill, something I don't think it's unreasonable to expect out of Wheeler as he matures. You could wonder if it's because the Mets were mostly out of it in the second half, and he decided he should start attacking hitters more, with less to lose? But then you'd expect his BB rate to drop, the same if he improved on his control. I can't easily find 1st/2nd splits for pitch FX though, but he yielded a few more fly balls and a few less line drives in the second half. he stranded 5% more runners. What it boils down to is that he may have been roughly the same pitcher just happened to have the defense make a few more plays and strand a few more runners.

Edgy MD Dec 29 2014 07:22 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

I understand it to be far more useful for pitchers, to the extent that it is useful. Rey Ordòñez had a contact rate second only to Tony Gwynn, but a babip 70 points lower. A person could keep attributing that to luck and expecting it to gravitate toward the mean, but it never happened and was never going to. There's contact and there's contact.

Ceetar Dec 29 2014 07:30 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

Edgy MD wrote: I understand it to be far more useful for pitchers, to the extent that it is useful. Rey Ordòñez had a contact rate second only to Tony Gwynn, but a babip 70 points lower. A person could keep attributing that to luck and expecting it to gravitate toward the mean, but it never happened and was never going to. There's contact and there's contact. Yes, agreed. that's why you often look to pair BABIP with LD% for batters. Really, with a variety of things, since it doesn't really tell a story on it's own. Look at Ruben Tejada, typically in the top of the league in LD% but not really making much of it. Ordonez has league-average LD% too. There's probably some value in also comparing that to ISO but I digress. But for a pitcher, all it's really telling you is about your defense. It's only somewhat true, but a pitcher has very little control over what happens to the ball after it leaves his hand. There ARE some pitchers that yield weak contact, but since it's so defense based, and defenses change so much year to year for almost everybody, it's hard to tie babip to pitcher skill.

Centerfield Dec 29 2014 07:35 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

Edgy MD wrote: Zach Wheeler. He was solid last year for the Mets. But we ain't hoping for solid. I would love to think that the improvement is real, but nothing I see from Zach leads me to believe he will ever be more than just solid. His only plus pitch is his fastball, and even that is not "swing and miss" material. His command is inconsistent. He has too many baserunners, and his pitch count accumulates too fast. To me, he reminds me a lot of Pelfrey. I would love to be wrong here. And I don't pretend to be a scout by any means, but I wonder if we will look back on this offseason as a time when we could have sold high on Wheeler.

Edgy MD Dec 29 2014 07:38 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

I see what you be saying. But I would note that (1) he strikes out a lot more fellas than Pelf, and (2) his control is consistent, worryingly so. Pelf since he left the Mets, by the way... 5-16/5.56.

Ceetar Dec 29 2014 07:51 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

Edgy MD wrote: I see what you be saying. But I would note that (1) he strikes out a lot more fellas than Pelf, and (2) his control is consistent, worryingly so. Pelf since he left the Mets, by the way... 5-16/5.56. which is well worse than his Mets numbers, but more telling is he hasn't even gotten 200 innings in since then. He was basically a league averagish type pitches for the Mets, which was quite useful, and now he's just broken. sad really. Last month the Twins placed right-hander Mike Pelfrey on the disabled list with a groin injury, which provided a convenient excuse to remove him from the rotation after going 0-3 with a 7.99 ERA in five starts. While rehabbing in the minors Pelfrey was shut down with a shoulder injury and now, after being examined by doctors again, he’s been diagnosed with nerve irritation in his elbow. I know I've heard some about how returning too fast from Tommy John can mess you up, and well, Pelf hasn't been the same since the Tommy John. but yeah, Wheeler strikes guys out. This is a lesser offensive era, but if all Wheeler is going to be is a sub-4 ERA guy..I'd be pretty darn happy about that.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 29 2014 08:52 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

Ceetar wrote: but yeah, Wheeler strikes guys out. This is a lesser offensive era, but if all Wheeler is going to be is a sub-4 ERA guy..I'd be pretty darn happy about that. Well, that's fine. But you should note-- if you haven't already-- that it is a substantially lesser offensive era, and that a "sub-4" ERA from a starter in this run environment is, like, a little below league-average (he's put that up thus far, and only been worth about 2 wins or so over a season and a half)... and that virtually EVERYBODY's striking out more dudes. If you're Sandy, and you think that this is what he's probably going to be, then-- duh-- you move him before everyone thinks what you think. Like I said, it's pretty obvious what he did in that second half, performance-wise-- make slightly more fly balls and pop-ups, without major changes in his K-rates or BB-rates (BUT with a significant, possibly-aberrant uptick in his HR/FB). The thing is, what did he actually do to do that? More high fastballs? Using hangers to actually (attempt to) get guys out? I can't find Pitch F/X splits that'll confirm or deny these or any other process-related hypothesis.

Ceetar Dec 29 2014 09:12 AM Re: But wait. There's more.

Looking at the gamelogs, he had 4 games at home, 9 away in the second half. compared to 8 at home, 11 away in the first half. Might simply be the Citi Field factor. (the HR rate that is)

Zvon Dec 29 2014 07:13 PM Re: But wait. There's more.

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Zach Wheeler. He was solid last year for the Mets. But we ain't hoping for solid. I would love to think that the improvement is real, but nothing I see from Zach leads me to believe he will ever be more than just solid. His only plus pitch is his fastball, and even that is not "swing and miss" material. His command is inconsistent. He has too many baserunners, and his pitch count accumulates too fast. To me, he reminds me a lot of Pelfrey. I would love to be wrong here. And I don't pretend to be a scout by any means, but I wonder if we will look back on this offseason as a time when we could have sold high on Wheeler. Anyone who's put up with me during a Wheeler IGT knows I think his pitch count is an issue. He has to get past that in 2015. I say he will. I feel he turned the corner in the second half. I think he will be more comfortable and less plate shy. He will bloom in 2015.

Edgy MD Dec 29 2014 07:25 PM Re: But wait. There's more.

Wilmer Flores overall slash stats in 2014: [list].251 / .286 / .378 // .664 in 274 plate appearances.[/list:u] Not particularly encouraging. Add that to his 2013 big league numbers and you get: [list].240 / .275 / .356 // .631 in 375 plate appearances.[/list:u] Not quite what you're looking for from an offense-first (and -second) infielder who you're about to give the starting shortstop job to. But wait. There's more! [list].262 / .301 / .419 // .720 in 184 plate appearances.[/list:u] That's Wilmer's line from the last 55 games, during which he started 51. Having entered the everyday lineup, it's certainly possible that he found his groove and worked it a little bit. That's still not an ideal line, but it's certainly defensible, and unlikely to sink an otherwise solid team. Not in itself. But wait. There's still more! In 2013 and 2014, Wilmer played a (highly convenient) 162 games for the Las Vegas 51s, during which time he looked a little like this: [list].321 / .360 / .543 // .903 with 47 doubles, 28 home runs, 143 RBI.[/list:u] Yeah, I know. It's AAA. It's more than AAA. It's AAA in the PCL. It's more than that, even. It's LV in the AAA PCL. But still. Those numbers at that age make it hard to look the other way. So what I mean to ask is... is that for real? Are those last two lines perhaps as indicative or possibly even more indicative than the first two of what we might expect out of him in 2015?

Zvon Dec 29 2014 07:32 PM Re: But wait. There's more.

I love it when there's more, and then even more! But I can't get excited over Flores. I'd like to, but I can't yet. Two reasons. ;) He could evolve into something special with ankle weight workouts.