Thread: Article: State of the Starting Corps

Look, rotations need both types of pitchers. Inning eaters have value in that they essentially eat innings. My concern is the unhealthy value that Ryan places on the innings eaters. Having 5 clones up on the mound helps opposing teams over a series because they just saw the same pitcher yesterday... and having a few high K guys at the front of the rotation makes a huge difference come playoff time. If I had an ideal rotation, it would be 3 number 1/2 type pitchers and 2 guys to round out the rotation who will get 200 plus innings as a 4/5 type guy. Those guys help keep the pen fresh and the team as a whole over the season. Come playoff time, you need the K guys.

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

.

Would not a lower ERA mean your team has a better chance of winning? From his data and final conclusion the quality pitcher can make the tougher pitch to hit. Sometimes it will be a strike, sometimes a ball, but the end result if it is hit is less damaging. If you want to go a better correlation on winning then take a look at the top 10 lowest era teams. All but the Mariners had winning records. The Mariners offense was among the worst. The key for ground balls to be effective outs is to have low on base percentage and high range infielders.

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

Just by going off last years numbers on fangraphs, I found only one team in the top ten in team K/9 had a losing record and only three in the bottom ten had winning records. Meanwhile five of the top ten teams in groundball percentage had losing records and five of the bottom ten had winning percentages. At the very least, lasts years numbers indicate the Twins approach of seeking groundball pitchers is pointless.

02-10. gb %.

1	TB.												40.7 %					.1
2	Sea.												41.8 %
3	LAA.												41.8 %					178.3
4	Twins												42.3 %					189.

K9

1	Cub							8.02										162.0
2	Astro							7.28										141.2
3	LAD							7.23										151.4
4	Ariz.							7.23										168.

Originally Posted by nicksaviking

Just by going off last years numbers on fangraphs, I found only one team in the top ten in team K/9 had a losing record and only three in the bottom ten had winning records. Meanwhile five of the top ten teams in groundball percentage had losing records and five of the bottom ten had winning percentages. At the very least, lasts years numbers indicate the Twins approach of seeking groundball pitchers is pointless.

Had to truncate as much as possible. Of the K/9 teams, only the Dodgers had a winning record, For the ground ball teams, the Twins and Angels were top 5 in wins through that period.

Baseball Prospectus Basics


Just Another Out?

Where the value of "just putting the ball in play" has often been overstated for hitters, the opposite has long been the case for pitchers. In their case, a strikeout is most definitely not "just another out." In fact, the ability to create outs for one's self is among the most important skills a pitcher can possess.


Why? There are a number of reasons, but mainly it's because more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits surrendered. And with fewer hits surrendered come fewer runs allowed. The steps aren't perfect, mind you, but on a macro level they hold up. The following graph illustrates the correlation between individual strikeout rate and ERA from 1993-2002:

This is just one of many sources highlighting the strong correlation between strikeout rate and runs allowed.

Originally Posted by snepp

Baseball Prospectus Basics


Just Another Out?




This is just one of many sources highlighting the strong correlation between strikeout rate and runs allowed.

As you can see by the round, lifeless blob in the middle of the graph, there is virtually no positive correlation between a team's strikeout totals and its runs-scored totals. When it comes to offense, an out is an out is an out.
On an individual level, the evidence against strikeouts as the scourge of the earth only gets more damning. Check out the correlation between Ks and the various elements of offensive production:
Correlation of SO/PA with (all players 1950-2002, 300+ PA)

Metric Correlation----------------------ISO +0.388SLG +0.198BB/PA +0.125OBP -0.100AVG -0.290OPS +0.106MLVr +0.005

Same article says as a batter if you strike out it is no big deal.

So if an out is an out, are a productive and an unproductive out the same thing?

Originally Posted by old nurse

As you can see by the round, lifeless blob in the middle of the graph, there is virtually no positive correlation between a team's strikeout totals and its runs-scored totals. When it comes to offense, an out is an out is an out.
On an individual level, the evidence against strikeouts as the scourge of the earth only gets more damning. Check out the correlation between Ks and the various elements of offensive production:
Correlation of SO/PA with (all players 1950-2002, 300+ PA)

Metric Correlation----------------------ISO +0.388SLG +0.198BB/PA +0.125OBP -0.100AVG -0.290OPS +0.106MLVr +0.005

Same article says as a batter if you strike out it is no big deal.

We're not talking about offense.

Pitchers, we're talking about pitchers, not hitters.

Hitting is not pitching, they are not the same thing.

Strikeouts don't matter all that much for hitters, the people we're not talking about.

Strikeouts matter for pitchers, a lot, the people we're talking about here.

There is going to be a correlation between strikeouts and ERA. It stands to reason because any strikeout removes the possibility of the normal percentages of bad result from the batted ball. The Law of Large numbers theorum is going to make that happen and we are powerless to stop it.

There is a much larger correlation between WHIP and ERA.
K's-BB's-WHIP-ERA.jpg


There is also a correlation between players 27 to 29 and peak performance. That will suggest we field nothing but players in that age range.

However... There are way too many outliers to consider when looking at these correlations.

I'm guessing that the Cubs have had a better off-season thus far. Finding a guy who gets a few K's is nice to have but it will only get a portion of my attention.

I apologize for the superflous graphs... I can't figure out how to remove the attachments on the bottom.

Well, there we have it!--The fewer baserunners allowed per inning, the lower the ERA--and people thought this was quantum theory. A graph of OPS vs ERA likely has an even higher correlation than WHIP vs ERA, but sorry I don't have that information.

Overall, I think Ryan has done an okay job this offseason dealing with the biggest minus on the 2012 team--the starting staff. While they didn't bring in marquee names, they brought in guys who might achieve something if healthy (Harden, Pelfrey) and guys who figure to provide innings (Correia, Worley) and most importantly fortified prospects for the near future (Meyers, May).

Originally Posted by stringer bell

Overall, I think Ryan has done an okay job this offseason dealing with the biggest minus on the 2012 team--the starting staff. While they didn't bring in marquee names, they brought in guys who might achieve something if healthy (Harden, Pelfrey) and guys who figure to provide innings (Correia, Worley) and most importantly fortified prospects for the near future (Meyers, May).

The bulk of this good is in that last part. Which has nothing to do with the current rotation.

Well now that Ryan has solidified the 4th and 5 th spots in the rotation , we are right back where we started ,minus a centerfielder and a right fielder...

ESPN did it's team power rankings...Twins are ranked 28th. This was the write-up:


'Kevin Correia, Vance Worley, Mike Pelfrey ... what, Rich Robertson and Sean Bergman weren't available?'

Originally Posted by snepp

We're not talking about offense.

Pitchers, we're talking about pitchers, not hitters.

Hitting is not pitching, they are not the same thing.

Strikeouts don't matter all that much for hitters, the people we're not talking about.

Strikeouts matter for pitchers, a lot, the people we're talking about here.

If the prime objective of offense is to score runs and stikeouts do not inhibit run production by the numbers, then why should it matter if the pitcher has a strikeout? It can't be both ways. It was your article.

By Riverbrian's graphs that much spread in the K9 pattern would suggest there is low correlation k/9 to era. Dr Marshall when he studied it found the correlation to be .22, ie low.
http://www.drmikemarshall.com/ILoveS...MindWalks.html

Also strikeouts per plate appearance is different than k/9. Again, they drew a line, but what was the reliability? It looks blob like at the low end.

I'd be curious to know how team fielding percentage effects each slope.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

'Kevin Correia, Vance Worley, Mike Pelfrey ... what, Rich Robertson and Sean Bergman weren't available?'

Yeah, that zinger hurts. And is spot on.

Originally Posted by snepp

Projecting the Twins pitching starts with a bottle of Jack.

...and ends with a Nikki Sixx-style heroin induced coma.

Originally Posted by Reginald Maudling's Shin

...and ends with a Nikki Sixx-style heroin induced coma.

Oh yeah,
Kickstart my heart,
Give it a start,
Oh, yeah, baby!