Peter Abraham vies for the title of “most premature conclusion”:

As for the Yankees, it appears they’re over their offensive woes.

I mean, it does sound good, of course…

Then I subtracted that wOBA from the league average wOBA and got a difference. That then gets added to the league average wOBA to get basically an inverse wOBA against ...

This is kind of confusing. Are you missing a qualifier before the second “league average wOBA”?

It’s further evidence of how valuable Damon has been offensively.

No CC, AJ, or Teix in the top 5. Obviously, bust.

If Joba was relieving, he’d be in top 3. Since Hughes is in the pen now, he’s going to rocket to the top of the list by next week.

Peter Abraham vies for the title of “most premature conclusion”:

They obviously are over their offensive woes.  The next time they stop scoring runs, it will be a new set of offensive woes.  24-hour news cycle, baby.

Anyway, I’ve been kinda busy for a few days.  Is it safe to assume that the mood here has improved with a pair of wins and the long-awaited defenestration of Mssrs Veras and Berroa?

Also in the running for “most premature conclusion” would be the inimitable John Sterling, who, after Gardner got his second hit last night, proclaimed: “He’s going to be a star.”

Sterling isn’t just “in the running” with that line.  He knocked everyone else out of the running.

Then I subtracted that wOBA from the league average wOBA and got a difference. That then gets added to the league average wOBA to get basically an inverse wOBA against ...

This is kind of confusing. Are you missing a qualifier before the second “league average wOBA”?

It’s probably clearer if I run through an example.  If we look at Greinke, he’s allowed a wOBA against of .258 versus a league average of .329.  So he’s been .329 - .258 = .071 better per PA/BF than league average.  Since we reward hitters for being above league average, I add that .071 to the league average wOBA to convert Greinke to the same scale as the hitters in terms of being above average, and that’s where the .399 comes in.

Really?
All right, yes - that certainly ups the ante!

“I’ve finally found a metric that doesn’t have him as the least valuable player in the AL.”

Note you’re conflating “hitter” and “pitcher” with “player” here.

It’s probably clearer if I run through an example.  If we look at Greinke, he’s allowed a wOBA against of .258 versus a league average of .329.  So he’s been .329 - .258 = .071 better per PA/BF than league average.  Since we reward hitters for being above league average, I add that .071 to the league average wOBA to convert Greinke to the same scale as the hitters in terms of being above average, and that’s where the .399 comes in.

Thanks, I appreciate this. I guess my confusion came from the fact that I expected a “hitter” before the second “league average wOBA”, but that qualifier is irrelevant because the average allowed wOBA equals the league average hitter wOBA.

the inimitable John Sterling, who, after Gardner got his second hit last night, proclaimed: “He’s going to be a star.”

The ante is even further upped by the fact that he’s been saying that during every game this week. (Well, anyway, the last two I listened to.)

Also, how would incorporating fielding influence this? I don’t think that adds or subtracts much from the pitcher, but can change things for the hitters, right?

Note you’re conflating “hitter” and “pitcher” with “player” here.

I usually do that when looking at overall value in a league context.  By my other runs above replacement looking at offense, defense and pitching, Wang is still worst in the league at 23 runs below replacement level, although he’s trending up slightly.

Also, how would incorporating fielding influence this?

Fielding pushes Mauer above Greinke, and definitely would shuffle the other position players around some.  On top of that if we also add a positional adjustment then the list would change as well.  I didn’t want to that here because like I said, I wanted to compare everyone on the same scale.  I wouldn’t use a list like this if I was trying to find the true MVP.

Should there not be a fielding correction on both sides, at least as a comparison?  Or maybe FIP vs FIB?

“Is it safe to assume that the mood here has improved with a pair of wins and the long-awaited defenestration of Mssrs Veras and Berroa?”

I’m not sure if it’s safe to go back to the game chatters yet.

Or maybe FIP vs FIB?

I doubt you could extend the FIP methodology to hitters, since the batter-to-batter variation of balls in play is much larger than the pitcher-to-pitcher variation.

[18] This could be calibrated out by a per-hitter correction comparing past wOBA to FIB or something.

link:

On the subject of Hughes, every Yankee official I speak to says he will ultimately end up back in the rotation. But they also are now sounding more and more committed to leaving him in the pen for the time being because of how dominant he has looked in that role.

Although he didn’t make a firm commitment, Girardi appeared to support this assessment when he was on with Francesa a short while ago.

Speaking of Hughes, I’m starting to wonder if he might be on some kind of Joba rules arrangement (minus the stupid publicity of course).  Since moving to the pen, he has not pitched on consecutive days, and has gotten two days off after pitching two innings and three days off after his 3.2 IP outing.

teh ate! teh ate! teh ate!

I can imagine the question:

How can you not move a starter who is dominant in relief and put in the starter who is dominant and electrifying in relief? Don’t you know that a starter is more valuable than a reliever, unless that reliever is electrifying?

This could be calibrated out by a per-hitter correction comparing past wOBA to FIB or something.

You could look at something like the difference between a pitcher’s BABIP vs. his team’s overall BABIP and then remove the appropriate values to adjust the help/hurt a a pitcher’s getting from his defense maybe?  I’ll tinker around with some stuff like that.

Speaking of Hughes, I’m starting to wonder if he might be on some kind of Joba rules arrangement (minus the stupid publicity of course).

I definitely think they’ve asked Girardi to be cognizant of the fact that Hughes hasn’t relieved before and to be a little judicious in his usage.  I also think at some point he will be moved back to the rotation, either in MLB or the minors, so they can get his innings up.  I’d think they want him to get at least 150 innings this year if at all possible.

I’d think they want him to get at least 150 innings this year if at all possible.

Not that I want anything to happen that doesn’t insure Hughes gets to be a full time starter next year. If he’s productive in the pen, and there is no room for him in the rotation, I’m fine with Hughes staying in the pen, from a win now perspective. It’s not like the Yankees are cruising in the division and can take their foot off the pedal.

At the same time, if Hughes goes forward in the pen, maybe an occasional spot start, (from 45 IPs right now) he’ll be at 80+ IPs or so, add another 10 IPs in the postseason, and what’s the normal fall league? 30 IPs? I guess that’s still gonna be pretty far from the 150 IP mark.

“If [...] there is no room for him in the rotation”

How can there not be room with Andy and Wang always an inning away from potential disaster, Joba innings-limited, AJ not a bet to etc.?

If Hughes were to spend the rest of the season in the bullpen being used as he has been this month, he’d wind up with around 90 MLB innings.  Then there’s the 20 he threw in SWB, plus hopefully a few more in the playoffs.  While obviously not ideal from a development perspective, it’s probably not nearly as bad as some might make it out to be.  He’d still be in a position to start next year with an innings limit similar to the one Chamberlain is on this season.

That’s bad for next year and the year after that - I naively get -50 IP, or -75 going another year.  Those innings will get taken by the 6th starter, and might mean two games worse.

Maybe the fall league idea helps, though there would be a ramp needed after having him in the pen most of the year.

Congratulations are in order to Chien-Ming Wang, as I’ve finally found a metric that doesn’t have him as the least valuable player in the AL.

And somehow that’s enough for the Yankees to keep him in the rotation…

Eh, Wang has a 5.68 ERA since coming off the DL, and his OPS against is “only” 0.865.  He’s been decidedly un-terrible and I think has shown signs of improvement.

I naively get -50 IP, or -75 going another year.

I think that’s being way optimistic on what Hughes might contribute next year if he got to 150 IP this year.  180 in 2010 and 200 in 2011 seems a lot more realistic.  So I’d say it’s more like -30 and -50.  And you also have to figure the drop-off between Hughes and whoever would have taken his 50 or so relief innings this season.

I was saying he gets to 115 this year, so that’s -35 this year, and next year (when he gets 145-180=-35 again), and the year after that (175-200=-25), so that’s between 60 and 95 fewer innings from Hughes depending, but then they’re going to push this, so.

Eh, Wang has a 5.68 ERA since coming off the DL, and his OPS against is “only” 0.865.  He’s been decidedly un-terrible and I think has shown signs of improvement.

If you lower the base to lower than replacement level, yes, that is improvement. But those numbers are indicative of terrible performance, even counting his good performances out of bullpen. So, as a starting pitcher, he has given a regular dose of 5 IP, 3 ER performances. Those are not acceptable performances.

Stats are not the reason why you would want to argue for Wang. It is the upside he represents once he is back to form. But I am not sure that upside exists anymore.

I was saying he gets to 115 this year, so that’s -35 this year…

OK, now I’m just not following at all anymore.  I thought you were talking about this in terms of value to the major league club, but it seems that you’re including innings that he threw in SWB earlier this year and excluding the value of the bullpen innings that he has thrown/will throw in MLB this year.  If we’re going to say that the team would be better off in the future with Hughes building up innings in the minors this year, and we’re going to assign a run value to that based on the innings he won’t be able to throw at the MLB level next year and the year after, then we have to also assign a value to the innings he pitches in the majors instead of the minors in 2009, don’t we?

IOW, the MLB team is not losing 35 innings of Phil Hughes in 2009, they’re gaining 90.  And of course, if Wang doesn’t start doing better than 5 innings and 3-4 runs every start, they’ll be looking to get more than 90 innings out of Hughes.

IMO, any argument that harps too much on IP progression year-by-year and injury/performance risk puts too much emphasis on Verducci’s “research”. I think it is a deeply flawed analysis, for multiple reasons.

We are already seeing with Lester that it is not an etched-in-stone analysis. There are reasons to be cautious about a young pitcher’s workload, but 30 IP progression is a completely arbitrary cut-off point. I believe ML ballclubs can do better, and they usually do.

We are already seeing with Lester that it is not an etched-in-stone analysis

What are you saying that Lester’s progression tells us?  Aside from the rather obvious fact that coming down with cancer makes his a fairly unique case.  He’s been much less effective this season and one could make a superficially decent argument that it’s because he pitched too many innings last year.

But anyway, this particular discussion doesn’t directly depend on Verducci.  It’s based on the way the Yankees have handled Chamberlain and Hughes to date and the perfectly plausible assumption that they aren’t likely to change things too drastically.

What are you saying that Lester’s progression tells us?  Aside from the rather obvious fact that coming down with cancer makes his a fairly unique case.  He’s been much less effective this season and one could make a superficially decent argument that it’s because he pitched too many innings last year.

According to Verducci’s “analysis”, Jon Lester had a huge jump in innings pitched before the last year and this year, thereby making him a likely candidate for injury or performance decline. But this obviously presupposes that much of what has been said earlier is premised on Verducci, which as you point out, may or may not be true.

As for his performance, I think it is fair to say that Lester has been recipient of poor luck this year, if you are only judging him by ERA. His velocity on fastball has increased, his K rate has jumped, the BB rate remains the same, his GB percentage has been almost same. Practically everything he can control as a pitcher has remained the same, or improved. The only difference between Lester 2008 and Lester 2009 is the BABIP, which is close to .350, which reflects poor defense behind him, perhaps, or balls just finding holes, which is reflective of poor luck, and HR/FB rate, which is almost 15 percent. Both of these things are random variations according to David Gassko’s research, and should even out. His FIP from a year earlier remains almost the same.

Personally, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Lester’s jump in HR.  And I’m not sure what you mean by “a huge jump in innings pitched before the last year and this year.”  He had a big jump in 2008, especially if you include the post-season.  His innings progression prior to that was pretty smooth, despite the time missed for his cancer treatment.  And even last year, he pitched about 40 innings more than Verducci would say he should have, not 80 or 100.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “a huge jump in innings pitched before the last year and this year.”

That was poorly worded, obviously. Should have read, “huge jump last year from his previously established maximum IP”.

I also am almost certain pitchers have very little control over HR/FB rate. That is remarkably steady for pitchers. The part to control is to not allow FB in the first place. Lester’s ERA numbers have been gradually progressing, as is Beckett’s. They remain very potent pitchers, unfortunately.

Did my comment get etherized?

Trying again:

“OK, now I’m just not following at all anymore.”

Because I’m not making any sense.  The above depended on the assumption that Hughes is not now better than Pettitte, which is I suspect not true but not real-world relevant, or that Wang won’t round into form.  I’m still hoping they’ll fix Wang.  So then it’s say 45+5 bullpen innings this year over the next in depth, which is probably good in RSAA but maybe bad if it blocks Melancon, vs the 60 innings over the next two years.  Maybe I don’t care then.  Probably those post-season innings are the same whether he’s a starter in the minors from now.

Another part of the argument concerns the case in which Hughes loses time to injury over the next few years - I guess one wants to get his innings up asap because of that, if having an innings-limited starter means difficulty in roster construction/predictability/whatever.

Because I’m not making any sense.

Well thanks for clearing that up!