Kyle Gibson-Luckiest Man on the Face of the Earth?

[Hrbowski]

 

Hey, remember when people wanted Gibson sent down like 10 days ago?  Maybe we should just let things play out a bit.

I remember that I was against it.

[Blake]

Rosario hits the first pitch he sees into the seats.

 

Schaeffer, who was on life support a couple weeks go, gets an infield hit on a pitch that somehow magically slides under the glove of the pitcher, capping a 3 hit 2 rbi night.

 

The Twins somehow manage to knock Chris Sale out of a game.

 

Gibson is escaping trouble like Houdini escaped a straight jacket.

 

My point being that Gibson is one data point on the lucky streak the Twins are enjoying right now.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Hey, remember when people wanted Gibson sent down like 10 days ago? Maybe we should just let things play out a bit.

Yep, another example of why I'm hesitant to advocate roster moves until the calendar flips to May.

[Paul Pleiss]

When I think of Kyle Gibson's recent performances against some potent lineups...

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dsq9ZGtjuiu8&ei=EZNLVa2BKZCQoQTqqoDwBA&usg=AFQjCNH8V6jrbkQ9iAGewX8-s9VLIR5G1Q&sig2=yz7iuMMfOzUtDr2xv4SbBQ&bvm=bv.92765956,d.cGU

 

[jokin]

 

Kyle Gibson entered tonight's game as the worst among all of MLB's qualified pitchers in these stats-   xFIP (5.09), worst SIERA (5.42) and worst K/BB (0.77), K/9 (2.97) & K%(7.6%-- the latter three only got worse after tonight).  And yet, his ERA now stands at 2.97.

 

Is it mirrors or magic tricks?  Feel free to discuss.

 

I was slightly off.... actually, after last night, all five indicators worsened-  SIERA is now 5.47, xFIP is now 5.10.

 

They say "better to be lucky than good", could it be that Gibson is the statistician's worst nightmare? Or is Gibson "good" enough to sustain this "lucky" streak over a full season as some of his skewed stats normalize?  Alarmingly, as of now, Gibson's K/9 rate is only ~half of what it was in 2014 (and many grumbled about his lack of Ks last year).  It sure seems like something is going to have to give- either one direction or the other. 

[tobi0040]

 

I was slightly off.... actually, after last night, all five indicators worsened-  SIERA is now 5.47, xFIP is now 5.10.

 

They say "better to be lucky than good", could it be that Gibson is the statistician's worst nightmare? Or is Gibson "good" enough to sustain this "lucky" streak over a full season as some of his skewed stats normalize?  Alarmingly, as of now, Gibson's K/9 rate is only ~half of what it was in 2014 (and many grumbled about his lack of Ks last year).  It sure seems like something is going to have to give- either one direction or the other. 

 

He is on pace for 1 HR every three starts and about 3 total XBH per start.   55-60% ground balls, most don't sneak through. It will take hits in bunches to score multiple runs off him and he is giving up less than one hit an inning.  So I think we are over-emphasizing k's here.

 

My personal take here....but the pitch to contact guys we have had in the past are much different than Gibson. He is throwing 91-94 with some movement on his fastball.  It sinks. And his slider has a lot of movement too.  His stuff is better than the guys we have been accustomed to, but I think he is being grouped in with that bunch based on one stat.  But the guy is missing the barrell of the bat.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think there's something inherently wrong in calling a statistical variant luck.  If pitching was nothing more than Ks, BBs, and BABIP, every one of us could pitch up there and maintain an ERA around 9.  I don't buy it.  There's definitely some luck there.  Seeing eye singles happen.  Sometimes a guy hits it hard, right at the OF.  It happens.  That, I think, distributes somewhat randomly over a large enough sample. 

 

But the ability to induce weaker contact in general is a skill.  Gibson may be one of those guys who walks that fine control line.  I get that... But it still isn't luck.  That's my problem with the advanced pitching metrics.  You have enough people pitching at that high of a level that their output is similar to a bell curve, which then leads them to conclude that it's all luck.  I don't buy it.  Not one bit. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

FIP and xFIP are heavily skewed towards strike out pitchers and punishes guys that get weak contact.

True, but I believe SIERA incorporates ground ball rates, and Gibson's SIERA is actually notably worse than his FIP or xFIP.  (I am not really familiar with SIERA, however.)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

All of this just points out the fallacy of relying on the "advanced" statistics as a way to evaluate present performance or predict future performance. These statistics are interesting for discussion and evaluative purposes but they are lousy predictors, particularly for pitching.

Actually, the "advanced" pitching statistics are better predictors than the traditional ones (like ERA).  Gibson's advanced stats were better than his actual ERA in 2013 and 2014, which had been cited here as a reason for optimism about him.

 

Of course, nothing is great predictor in this small of a sample, but Gibson's odd season is worth keeping an eye on.

[IndyTwinsFan]

 

Rosario hits the first pitch he sees into the seats.

 

Schaeffer, who was on life support a couple weeks go, gets an infield hit on a pitch that somehow magically slides under the glove of the pitcher, capping a 3 hit 2 rbi night.

 

The Twins somehow manage to knock Chris Sale out of a game.

 

Gibson is escaping trouble like Houdini escaped a straight jacket.

 

My point being that Gibson is one data point on the lucky streak the Twins are enjoying right now.

Love that Houdini reference!   I think there's a lot of truth to the point you're making.

 

Whether the streak the Twins have been on since the second week of the season is due to luck, skill, or some combination thereof, I say we just enjoy it for as long as we can and stop wondering how or why it's happening.   Enjoy the moment, because we don't know how long it will last.

[drivlikejehu]

Gibson's swinging strike rate is 7% (last year: 8.8%), which is subpar but nowhere near as low as his strikeout rate. So part of the dramatic decline is probably a fluke.

 

Whether his current 2015 ERA is "lucky" is to some extent a debate over semantics. The concern has to do with future results, which is certainly an issue given Gibson's problems putting guys away and limiting walks.

 

Keep in mind, an ERA of 4.00 isn't that good anymore, even for a starter. So if that's Gibson's true ability, which appears optimistic at this stage, he still isn't a building block for the rotation.

 

Note that his current ERA - xFIP gap would be larger than any on record for a full season.

[tobi0040]

 

Keep in mind, an ERA of 4.00 isn't that good anymore, even for a starter. So if that's Gibson's true ability, which appears optimistic at this stage, he still isn't a building block for the rotation.

 

Fangraphs has only 66 qualified starters with an ERA better than 4.00 last year.   Only 29 of those were in the AL.  If you have 75 starters in the AL he would be in the 62nd percentile at a 4.00.

 

I also don't understand why an ERA of 4.00 is optimistic.  His career FIP is 4.17 in his first 250 innings. 

[jokin]

 

I think there's something inherently wrong in calling a statistical variant luck.  If pitching was nothing more than Ks, BBs, and BABIP, every one of us could pitch up there and maintain an ERA around 9.  I don't buy it.  There's definitely some luck there.  Seeing eye singles happen.  Sometimes a guy hits it hard, right at the OF.  It happens.  That, I think, distributes somewhat randomly over a large enough sample. 

 

But the ability to induce weaker contact in general is a skill.  Gibson may be one of those guys who walks that fine control line.  I get that... But it still isn't luck.  That's my problem with the advanced pitching metrics.  You have enough people pitching at that high of a level that their output is similar to a bell curve, which then leads them to conclude that it's all luck.  I don't buy it.  Not one bit. 

 

But this year's numbers for Gibson so far suggest that his ability to induce weaker contact has diminished, LD% up significantly, along with the 50% reduction in Ks, while his strand rate is over 20% above career norms.  Still lots of luck involved for Gibson to this point, but definitely not "all luck."

[tobi0040]

 

But this year's numbers for Gibson so far suggest that his ability to induce weaker contact has diminished, LD% up significantly, along with the 50% reduction in Ks, while his strand rate is over 20% above career norms.  Still lots of luck involved for Gibson to this point, but definitely not "all luck."

 

HIs HR/9 numbers over the last two years, .6 and .5 are very, very good.  That is over 200 IP. 

[Linus]

 

Gibson's swinging strike rate is 7% (last year: 8.8%), which is subpar but nowhere near as low as his strikeout rate. So part of the dramatic decline is probably a fluke.

 

Whether his current 2015 ERA is "lucky" is to some extent a debate over semantics. The concern has to do with future results, which is certainly an issue given Gibson's problems putting guys away and limiting walks.

 

Keep in mind, an ERA of 4.00 isn't that good anymore, even for a starter. So if that's Gibson's true ability, which appears optimistic at this stage, he still isn't a building block for the rotation.

 

Note that his current ERA - xFIP gap would be larger than any on record for a full season.

Huh?  The guy is in his second year in the bigs, showing promise and you've determined he isn't a part of our future rotation?

[drivlikejehu]

 

Fangraphs has only 66 qualified starters with an ERA better than 4.00 last year.   Only 29 of those were in the AL.  If you have 75 starters in the AL he would be in the 62nd percentile at a 4.00.

 

I also don't understand why an ERA of 4.00 is optimistic.  His career FIP is 4.17 in his first 250 innings. 

 

Well you can't only look at qualified starters and then say everyone else is worse than a 4.00. 

 

Setting the screen to 100 IP for 2014 returns 140 starters; of those, Gibson's xFIP- was 85th (his xFIP was 3.99 but xFIP- adjusts for home park and league). 

 

Being a little below average isn't the worst thing, but it's not a real valuable commodity either, especially as he reaches arbitration and his salary rises.

[markos]

 

Fangraphs has only 66 qualified starters with an ERA better than 4.00 last year.   Only 29 of those were in the AL.  If you have 75 starters in the AL he would be in the 62nd percentile at a 4.00.

 

I also don't understand why an ERA of 4.00 is optimistic.  His career FIP is 4.17 in his first 250 innings. 

Average ERA for AL starters last year was 3.92. I think your filter to just qualified starters skews things a little bit. In the AL, there were 76 pitchers that made at least 15 starts. 43 had an ERA under 4.00, which would put Gibson in the ~40th percentile. 

 

That being said, i think Gibson is perfectly serviceable as a back-of-the-rotation starter, even on a contending team.

[tobi0040]

 

Well you can't only look at qualified starters and then say everyone else is worse than a 4.00. 

 

Setting the screen to 100 IP for 2014 returns 140 starters; of those, Gibson's xFIP- was 85th (his xFIP was 3.99 but xFIP- adjusts for home park and league). 

 

Being a little below average isn't the worst thing, but it's not a real valuable commodity either, especially as he reaches arbitration and his salary rises.

 

Using the same 100 IP, he was 43rd among the 74 AL Pitchers. About middle of the pack (42nd percentile) in the toughest league in effectively his rookie year.

 

Most pitchers have careers that are much better than their rookie year. 

 

[drivlikejehu]

 

Using the same 100 IP, he was 43rd among the 74 AL Pitchers. About middle of the pack (42nd percentile) in the toughest league in effectively his rookie year.

 

Most pitchers have careers that are much better than their rookie year. 

 

 

Not really:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-aging-curves-introduction/

 

There is a decent chance that 2014 was actually Gibson's peak.

 

[tobi0040]

 

Not really:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-aging-curves-introduction/

 

There is a decent chance that 2014 was actually Gibson's peak.

 

I highly doubt his peak ERA will be the 4.66 he had last year.

 

It was an interesting read.  But the data set of a pitcher starting his career at 21 does not really apply to Gibson.  The FIP on the graph was lower than first six years of the pitchers career than it was in his first year (pink line).  Now they are concluding that is because that is when the fastball starts the velocity decline.  It could also be that the pitcher has a better feel for getting hitters out once they gain experience.  I see a trade off between these two. A 39 year old pitchers fastball velo decline will more than offset his age/experience for example.

 

[jimbo92107]

Kyle Gibson is a good sinker-baller who has been keeping his pitches nice and low in the zone. Plus, he has added a decent change-up that he's been throwing for strikes, adding to the difficulty of predicting what he's going to throw in crucial situations. The result has been a lot of batters making very bad contact.

 

The lack of strikeouts is no big deal to a sinker-baller. It should mean that his offerings are getting more swings, as batters see his stuff consistently in or near the strike zone.

 

Gibson's mechanics are looking very good these days. He's finishing pretty much on balance, tho I fail to understand how any pitcher makes it out of high school without being taught to finish in position to field. If it was good enough for Koufax and Maddux, every pitcher should look like a shortstop at the end of his pitch, not like a drunk lurching out of a bar.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I highly doubt his peak ERA will be the 4.66 he had last year.

 

It was an interesting read.  But the data set of a pitcher starting his career at 21 does not really apply to Gibson.  The FIP on the graph was lower than first six years of the pitchers career than it was in his first year (pink line).  Now they are concluding that is because that is when the fastball starts the velocity decline.  It could also be that the pitcher has a better feel for getting hitters out once they gain experience.  I see a trade off between these two. A 39 year old pitchers fastball velo decline will more than offset his age/experience for example.

 

I was going by xFIP-, not ERA, in terms of assessing his 2014 stats.

 

Coming up at a later age is not really a positive, from a historical trend standpoint. But regardless, the point with Gibson is that's he's a #4 starter at best, which is fine but not really helpful in terms of turning around the pitching staff.

[tobi0040]

 

I was going by xFIP-, not ERA, in terms of assessing his 2014 stats.

 

Coming up at a later age is not really a positive, from a historical trend standpoint. But regardless, the point with Gibson is that's he's a #4 starter at best, which is fine but not really helpful in terms of turning around the pitching staff.

 

I think labelling a starter by a number is a bit arbitrary, since nobody agrees on the scale.

 

But for simplicity sake, he was in the 42nd percentile in basically his rookie year.  By definiition, that would be on the border of a #3 or #4 starter (20-40th percentile).  You and I seem to disagree on if he will improve from that point.  I think he will.  I have already seen his pitches move more and him mix in a pretty solid change-up.  But we will have to let that part go.

 

As far as him being up late, he was a few starts from being up at 24, which is pretty early for a college player.  Then he had TJ.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I think labelling a starter by a number is a bit arbitrary, since nobody agrees on the scale.

 

But for simplicity sake, he was in the 42nd percentile in basically his rookie year.  By definiition, that would be on the border of a #3 or #4 starter (20-40th percentile).  You and I seem to disagree on if he will improve from that point.  I think he will.  I have already seen his pitches move more and him mix in a pretty solid change-up.  But we will have to let that part go.

 

As far as him being up late, he was a few starts from being up at 24, which is pretty early for a college player.  Then he had TJ.

 

Sure, but TJ is not a positive. Things would be different if he had always been 100% healthy (starting with the fact the Twins wouldn't have been able to draft him if he had no question marks before the draft).

 

The distinction between a "#3" or "#4" etc. is definitely somewhat arbitrary... what I expressed in general was the view that his ceiling is limited and that he's more of an innings eater than difference maker.

 

Of course that's just my opinion, not fact, and I hope to be wrong. But at some point, if the Twins are going to contend and hopefully be in the playoffs, they will need top of rotation starters. I thought Gibson had #2 potential but it didn't work out.

[Willihammer]

Anyone who thinks BABIP regression is not going to hit Gibson - and hit him hard, probably, should take another look at Nick Blackburn's career pre- and post- 2009.

[adorduan]

 

Sure, but TJ is not a positive. Things would be different if he had always been 100% healthy (starting with the fact the Twins wouldn't have been able to draft him if he had no question marks before the draft).

 

The distinction between a "#3" or "#4" etc. is definitely somewhat arbitrary... what I expressed in general was the view that his ceiling is limited and that he's more of an innings eater than difference maker.

 

Of course that's just my opinion, not fact, and I hope to be wrong. But at some point, if the Twins are going to contend and hopefully be in the playoffs, they will need top of rotation starters. I thought Gibson had #2 potential but it didn't work out.

Isn't it a little early in his career to say it didn't work out?

[Monkeypaws]

To answer the OP's question, no.

 

Nolasco is the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. ERA of 9.00, 2-1 record, millionaire salary.

[tobi0040]

I think Gibson can be a 2 or 3 and he could end up being our 4th best pitcher. Controlled through 31. I think he is a good piece moving forward.

[jorgenswest]

Anyone who thinks BABIP regression is not going to hit Gibson - and hit him hard, probably, should take another look at Nick Blackburn's career pre- and post- 2009.

Do you believe they are similar talents and on similar career paths?

[ashbury]

 

 

BTW, does anyone know where one can find XBH allowed by a pitcher? I'm curious to see Gibson's numbers. I bet they're really low.

B-r.com has "Batting Against" as a choice under the pitching menu on the main league page.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2015-batting-pitching.shtml

 

There is also an equivalent display for a given team, under the pitching menu but titled "Detailed Stats". Maybe I should talk to Sean about that inconsistency.

 

It shows our Gibby with 10 doubles and 2 homers. Probably more meaningful is the .248/.331/.365 slash line. Compared to the league, his BA is right at average, the OBP is a little high, the SLG a little low. I think that's what you were driving at, right?

 

His BABIP is .258. That's low. But guys like Kershaw do it (well, .278). Why not our guy?