The 2010 MLB Season Thread

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Ryan Howard is not worth $25M, that's just what the Phillies paid him. On that scale, Pujols is worth about $40M. But who's going to pay that? He'll be lucky to get $30M a year, because really, who else can pony up even $25M a year? The Yankees won't have room for him, the Red Sox would likely go after a younger guy like Gonzalez, the Giants already tried winning while paying one guy too much money, the Cubs still have Soriano, the Dodgers have an ownership mess, the Angels don't spend money on FAs...maybe the Mariners (though doubtful with Felix and possibly Lee getting big contracts)?

The point is, there is no market for these guys. That's what makes the Howard deal absurd, even apart from the fact that they've just guaranteed this money about 18 months before they really needed to. If you're going to lock someone in 2 years ahead of time, you're supposed to get a discount to offset the risk that his career could end tomorrow. They not only didn't get a discount, they paid a premium. It's insane. I get more and more pissed as I think about it.

I've had a bad week - first the Broncos draft Tebow, now this!

Okay, pet peeve. Barry Bonds was if anything, underpaid. I realize the national narrative was that Bonds' salary was the "holdup", but the Giants paid him about $4M more than the are paying Aaron Rowand. I'd say he was pretty damn well worth it.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Okay, pet peeve. Barry Bonds was if anything, underpaid. I realize the national narrative was that Bonds' salary was the "holdup", but the Giants paid him about $4M more than the are paying Aaron Rowand. I'd say he was pretty damn well worth it.

I should have been more specific. The national narrative was correct, in so far as the Giants' attempts to win from about 2005 until he "retired." He was making well over $20M a year at one point. Rowland wasn't even signed until 2008 and was only making $8M/year. They spent entirely too much money on one guy for a team that was consistently losing 85-90 games for a 3-5 year period (or thereabouts).

[k0ruptr]

Front page of Yahoo sports: MLB

Fantasy Baseball: Who's Hot First 3 are.........


1. Jose Guillen 9 runs, 4 homers and 11 ribbies

number 2 is.....

2. Andruw Jones .278 4 homers and 7 runs

I love it! who woulda thunk it. lol

and numba 3~.....................!!!

Ty Wigginton haha 6 homers 12 ribbies and 10 runs.. damn I love Baseball season! you never know whos gonna be that team leader.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I should have been more specific. The national narrative was correct, in so far as the Giants' attempts to win from about 2005 until he "retired." He was making well over $20M a year at one point. Rowland wasn't even signed until 2008 and was only making $8M/year. They spent entirely too much money on one guy for a team that was consistently losing 85-90 games for a 3-5 year period (or thereabouts).

Nope, again that's wrong. I'm a Giants fan - I'm confident in my assertions. Bonds had a 5 yr, 90M million contract - Rowand had 5 years, 60M - difference is 6 million per year (agree different times). The Giants problem was not Bonds (who produced 8 win seasons - well under market value), but the crap Sabean surrounded him with. Blaming Bonds for the Giants general crapiness is like blaming Zach Grienke for the Royals. They had plenty of other money to spend, but chose to spend it on the likes of Neifi Perez, Dave Roberts, Matt Morris, Edgardo Alfonzo, etc etc - trust me, the list goes on. Bonds was a bargain for the Giants through and through.

[k0ruptr]

really good read on Jorge Posada and all his years as a yankee, mostly about all the different pitchers he caught, interesting though:

Posada adventures: Veteran catcher ranks 'em all - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

[JS19]

Despite a piss poor effort from good'ole Ollie Perez, Mets sweep the doubleheader from the Dodgers, go for the series sweep tomorrow afternoon.

Also, maybe I haven't been paying much attention, or it just hasn't been talked about much, but it's great to see Liriano headed in the right direction and pitching like the Liriano of old. What a huge boost to the Twins that must be.

[mckerney]

Third strong start in a row for Liriano, really hope he's getting back into a groove of 2006 form. Before the season started I thought the Twins had a chance to win the Central, but didn't think there would be a shot at much more with the rotation not looking like it has a #1 starter. If Liriano can be the #1 guy they could have a shot come October if they make it.

But first, important series at Detroit this week, would be great if they could pull one more out and continue the streak of series won.

[stevew]

trevor hoffman ftl.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by stevew

trevor hoffman ftl.

His implosion was expected - last year. He's been about as good this year as many people thought he'd be in that ballpark at his age last year.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Amazing that Greinke is going to have a winless April. He hasn't pitched great, but he's been plenty good enough to win at least a couple of his starts.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

His implosion was expected - last year. He's been about as good this year as many people thought he'd be in that ballpark at his age last year.

Yep. Most thought the implosion would happen last year.

His problem this year doesn't have anything to do with losing velocity. He's still in that 85-87 range with his fastball but he is simply not locating it. He needs to get ahead of hitters and hit the corners early in the count with his fastball to setup that wicked changeup and he's simply not doing it right now.

If he is going to continue throwing his 85 MPH fastball right down the middle, stick a fork in him. People are wondering why he isn't throwing his changeup as much this year but it's simply because he is getting behind with his fastball and doesn't have the opportunity to use his main weapon.

The question is how long of a leash he'll get as the Brewers have Zach Braddock in AAA who did not give up a single run in spring training and hasn't given up a run yet in AAA.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by lungs

The question is how long of a leash he'll get as the Brewers have Zach Braddock in AAA who did not give up a single run in spring training and hasn't given up a run yet in AAA.

I assume he'll get as long as it takes to nail down save #600. They've got a big countdown banner in the park and everything. No reason for anyone to stop being held hostage by this useless stat now.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm sure this can't last, but the Mets are actually in 1st place at some point during this season?! Whoa...

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by lungs

The question is how long of a leash he'll get as the Brewers have Zach Braddock in AAA who did not give up a single run in spring training and hasn't given up a run yet in AAA.

I'd suspect they'd give Villanueva first crack at closing with the numbers he's put up this year.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I assume he'll get as long as it takes to nail down save #600. They've got a big countdown banner in the park and everything. No reason for anyone to stop being held hostage by this useless stat now.

The way he is pitching, it may take a long, long time.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I assume he'll get as long as it takes to nail down save #600. They've got a big countdown banner in the park and everything. No reason for anyone to stop being held hostage by this useless stat now.

Statements like this are why I lose interest in this thread about 3 weeks into the season.

This isn't a personal attack, I just hate baseball stat geeks. Saves as a useless stat seems like a silly statement, isn't the point of the game end the game ahead? Seems to me a guy who has boatloads of saves is pretty valuable.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Statements like this are why I lose interest in this thread about 3 weeks into the season.

This isn't a personal attack, I just hate baseball stat geeks. Saves as a useless stat seems like a silly statement, isn't the point of the game end the game ahead? Seems to me a guy who has boatloads of saves is pretty valuable.

Touche.

[Ksyrup]

Saves are a useless stat because of the requirements for getting one and because of how teams use their closers these days. Failing to recognize that a 1-run lead with 2 on in the 8th inning is a higher-leverage situation - and thus requires the use of your best pitcher, not 3rd or 4th best - than no one on with a 3-run lead in the 9th just exacerbates what was already a questionable counting stat to begin with.

[LloydLungs]

I feel like a lot of major league teams have figured out the RBI thing (Howard/Feliz contracts notwithstanding), but not so much the save thing. It's the most enduring useless stat of them all. Most teams are still absolutely dogmatic about it. If the qualifications for this stat changed, it would COMPLETELY change the way teams use their bullpens. I guess we have LaRussa and closers' agents to thank for this?

[Logan]

RD2 is BRILLIANT!

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm sure this can't last, but the Mets are actually in 1st place at some point during this season?! Whoa...

Break em up! It's amazing what happens when your highly paid hitters actually hit. Ike has been a tremendous shot in the arm and has lengthened the lineup. Management's refusal to bring up earlier was inexcusable (fine, you don't want to annoint him the starter but it's inexcusable that they didn't put him in the lineup once Murphy got hurt) and looks worse by the day. Anything to make Minaya and co. look foolish is good in my book.

I'm sure the pitching won't keep this up though, better get the wins while we can.

[bhlloy]

Very interesting article in Y! Sports about this yesterday, that the Twins recognize this as dogma and wanted to switch to fluid bullpen/best guy where most needed but ended up naming Rauch as the closer anyway because a) convention and b) they felt guys would be uncomfortable out of their usual role ("i'm not a setup guy, why am I pitching the 8th etc..) I think b) is a crock of shit and the manager just didn't have the guts to go against baseball code but still an interesting insight.

I have to say I'm 98% in the "stat geek" camp on this one. I do think there is a psychological factor that means blowing a game in the ninth inning could have a worse effect on a ballclub (and certainly a fanbase) than in the sixth or seventh but that certainly doesn't excuse the way closers are used or the insane amount of money they get. Funnily enough I fall into this trap all the time playing OOTP - the number of games I blow because I'm "saving" my closer for the 9th and an inferior MR gives up a bunch of runs in the previous innings... it's definitely a part of baseball that has been driven into us and many people just accept as fact

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I feel like a lot of major league teams have figured out the RBI thing (Howard/Feliz contracts notwithstanding), but not so much the save thing. It's the most enduring useless stat of them all. Most teams are still absolutely dogmatic about it. If the qualifications for this stat changed, it would COMPLETELY change the way teams use their bullpens. I guess we have LaRussa and closers' agents to thank for this?

The only thing I'll say in support of how teams use their best relievers - and I believe Bill James, of all people, actually recognizes this as a valid issue - is the idea that psychologically, it's much easier to rationalize losing a 7th inning lead than it is a 9th inning lead. And so even if you havea higher leverage situation in the 7th and you bring in your best reliever and they're able to preserve the lead, and say they even pitch the 8th, if you bring in a less talented reliever to preserve a bigger lead in the 9th, and he blows it, it's not only more psychologically damaging to the team, but it's an easy target for fans/media to come down hard on the coach. And we see that all the time - you rarely see people get pissed when the 5th best reliever blows a 2-run lead in the 6th or 7th - it's more about not having better pitchers to pitch those innings, not the fact that they didn't use their best pitcher in that spot.

So, I believe there is something to that, and in today's game where none of these guys are conditioned to pitch more than 1 inning, it's almost impossible to use them to cover both contingencies like Gossage/Sutter/Fingers, etc., use to routinely be used. I guess the best option is to have 2 really good guys who can be stretched out for 2+ innings at a time, with the opportunity to switch between them when you need a "long save." basically, splitting the save opportunities up between two guys who each pitch about 90-100 innings. But who knows if that would work, and if they get hurt or it's ineffective, it's your job.

Baseball people generally don't like change.

[LloydLungs]

I think if you removed the save stat, most teams would still use their best guy often in the 9th inning -- but it would be more fluid. The 9th inning, on average, is still probably the toughest inning to pitch from the standpoint that there will rarely be any breaks, light-hitting guys, etc, because they'll all be pinch hit for. But circumstances in individual games can come up that make another inning the toughest.

Alls I know is, I want to throw stuff at the TV whenever a guy gets one of those "start the 9th with a 3-run lead, give up 2 runs, still get the save" deals. Where the announcers will laugh and go "Ha ha, he always keeps it interesting but does the job in the end!" The guy who came up with the save qualification rules was clearly a loony. At least for one-inning-or-less situations, I'd require the tying run to be at the plate, period.

[Logan]

I think we've discussed this before, but I'm surprised one of the small market teams hasn't tried the approach of using your best (overall, or based on recent performance) relievers when the appropriate situation dictates, and forgetting about the traditional roles. Especially when the majority of relievers' sucess seems to vary wildly on a year to year basis.

Unless someone is and I've completely missed it.

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed. The traditional save/closer role is a social convention that has been advanced by baseball tradition that really doesn't have statistical basis... or has very little actual real world application (people cling to social conventions and may get upset when those are interrupted because of the irrational belief systems they've been led to believe is true because "that's how it always has been" - even though it really hasn't, ie go back 50 years).

[Ksyrup]

No one's got the stones to try it. Didn't Boston suggest something like that several years ago, and it lasted maybe 1 week before the media blew the whole thing out of proportion?

What teams do now is simply not pay for the save. I don't think Papelbon will be back with Boston once he becomes a FA. And look at what the A's have done - they'd trade off the Billy Koch's of the world rather than pay them. They found closers, used them, and traded or let them go before they cost too much.

[Logan]

Someone check on Lathum.

[Ksyrup]

The other thing is - trying to implement that kind of new bullpen usage - you've got to hit on several lights out/solid closer types to make it work, because if you develop a guy who in a conventional setting would be getting 40 saves a year and in line to make millions, and he ends up each year 7-2 with 18 saves and great secondary numbers, he's not going to get paid as much in arbitration and will likely bolt in FA the first chance he gets for a team that will give him 50 save ops a year (and probably not have him pitch as many innings, either!). So instead of overpaying for a known quantity you can keep for 6-8 years, you end up needing to find/develop several of those guys. And that's hard to do.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No one's got the stones to try it. Didn't Boston suggest something like that several years ago, and it lasted maybe 1 week before the media blew the whole thing out of proportion?

2003. Definitely a case of right idea, wrong guys.

Kim, Embree, Timlin, Mendoza, Fox, Lyon.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm sure this can't last, but the Mets are actually in 1st place at some point during this season?! Whoa...

I'm actually happy about this. Maybe it will make it harder to fire Minaya.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The other thing is - trying to implement that kind of new bullpen usage - you've got to hit on several lights out/solid closer types to make it work, because if you develop a guy who in a conventional setting would be getting 40 saves a year and in line to make millions, and he ends up each year 7-2 with 18 saves and great secondary numbers, he's not going to get paid as much in arbitration and will likely bolt in FA the first chance he gets for a team that will give him 50 save ops a year (and probably not have him pitch as many innings, either!). So instead of overpaying for a known quantity you can keep for 6-8 years, you end up needing to find/develop several of those guys. And that's hard to do.

But if everyone did it.....

Eventually you would start earning the right amount of money based on the valid stats. Your point holds though, again it's just another issue with the system as a whole.

[Logan]

You would also think front office people would take a quick scan through the league leaders in appearances, see their "best" guys buried somewhere in the middle of the list, and figure out a way to correct that.

[Ksyrup]

It really needs to start at the minor league level - teams need to identify guys they want to stretch out (maybe 2-pitch starters who don't project to anything better than 4th-5th starter) and start using guys like that in the minors. It'd be better to test the theory and take your lumps on implementing it at a level no one's paying attention to, rather than at the MLB level.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Ryan Howard is not worth $25M, that's just what the Phillies paid him. On that scale, Pujols is worth about $40M. But who's going to pay that? He'll be lucky to get $30M a year, because really, who else can pony up even $25M a year? The Yankees won't have room for him, the Red Sox would likely go after a younger guy like Gonzalez, the Giants already tried winning while paying one guy too much money, the Cubs still have Soriano, the Dodgers have an ownership mess, the Angels don't spend money on FAs...maybe the Mariners (though doubtful with Felix and possibly Lee getting big contracts)?...

Not really too pertinent to your overall point, but, technically, this is not true. The Angels have given big deals in the past seven seasons to Vlad, Bartolo Colon, Gary Matthews Jr. (puke) and Torii Hunter, and good-sized deals to others as well (Fuentes, Escobar, Cabrera, etc.).

If you're saying the Angels won't spend Yankee money on anyone ($20M-plus per), that I can definitely agree with. I don't think the Angels would break the bank for anyone, much less someone at a position at which they already have a young star in Kendry.

The Angels recent trend of not retaining their free agents is more a combination of better value options in the system or recognizing that the market was going to vastly overpay for their retention targets (Lackey, Figgins, KRod, Teixeira, etc.).

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I was thinking mostly of the big-name people they were supposedly in on, but never seemed (at least according to the media) to be real players for once the money went too far beyond $100M - Sabathia, Teixeira, etc. Matthews was a horrible deal, but $75M less than Howard (I know, he's worth far less than that, but just comparing total dollars). My feeling is they were OK with Hunter's contract mainly because it didn't break that $100M threshold.

[lordscarlet]

I think this is a good time to point out that Matt Capps leads the majors with 9 saves (and is 9/9)!

[lordscarlet]

Thursday during baseball season is a good day. Lots of day games to listen to while I work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

You would also think front office people would take a quick scan through the league leaders in appearances, see their "best" guys buried somewhere in the middle of the list, and figure out a way to correct that.

Of course there's also the matter of whether those would still be your "best" guys if they were leading the league in appearances.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I think this is a good time to point out that Matt Capps leads the majors with 9 saves (and is 9/9)!

Dude is worse than Gascanrahan. Unless he's found his swing and miss stuff(haven't checked him out in pitch fx yet), capps rely'd way too much on a middling fastball the past two seasons, and his velocity was getting weaker.

IE, he's going to get shelled sooner or later.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by stevew

Dude is worse than Gascanrahan. Unless he's found his swing and miss stuff(haven't checked him out in pitch fx yet), capps rely'd way too much on a middling fastball the past two seasons, and his velocity was getting weaker.

IE, he's going to get shelled sooner or later.

Don't get me wrong, he has had a lot of scary appearances. It was at least partially tongue in cheek because he leads the league in saves and there was discussion about how worthless that stat is. But in 9 appearances (12.1 IP) he has a 0.73 ERA, 12 H, 14 SO, 6 BB. His WHIP is slightly improved over last year (1.459 vs. 1.656). SO/BB has gone from 2.71 to 2.33. The Nationals just need him to last until Storen comes up.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The other thing is - trying to implement that kind of new bullpen usage - you've got to hit on several lights out/solid closer types to make it work, because if you develop a guy who in a conventional setting would be getting 40 saves a year and in line to make millions, and he ends up each year 7-2 with 18 saves and great secondary numbers, he's not going to get paid as much in arbitration and will likely bolt in FA the first chance he gets for a team that will give him 50 save ops a year (and probably not have him pitch as many innings, either!). So instead of overpaying for a known quantity you can keep for 6-8 years, you end up needing to find/develop several of those guys. And that's hard to do.

I think the Pirates were trying to do this. Build a leverage team with high K rates to try to pitch out of jams and get key outs.

Meek-Around 8-9k/9
Donnelly-roughly 8k/9 the past 5 years
Hanrahan-over 9.5k/9(significant walk issues)

And they have dotel(meh) closing.


Now it's not entirely working, but more of the problems are the starting pitching, rather than the back half of the bullpen.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I saw that the starting rotation is 3-12 - on a 7-12 team.

[lordscarlet]

Oh, and Tyler Clippard has been spectacular. Not to mention Livan Hernandez. It is highly unlikely all of this will continue, but April has been great to watch (well, in most cases for me, listen to).

[Ksyrup]

It's Hoffman time again.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's Hoffman time again.

Annnnnnnd...ouch.

[stevew]

oh shit, Hoffman ftl

[lungs]

Man..... That's brutal.

[stevew]

McClutchen.

[lungs]

Aaaaaand.... Dotel blows it for the Pirates

[stevew]

Why wouldn't you pinch run for Prince Fielder when he's the winning run on second base?
Now granted, Dotel just walked the next batter.