Big Day for Buxton/Lead-off hitter

[Don't Feed the Greed Guy]

I like the move to leadoff.

 

I think Dickbert said something last night about Buxton's familiarity with the leadoff position. He's led off at every level of the minors, and then when he gets to "The Show" the first thing Molitor did was pencil him in at #9.

 

Get him back to where he's comfortable. That's all.

[stringer bell]

 

Hunter said, "With Buxton on base, I think Dozier gets more fastballs."

 

Dozier looked pretty happy yesterday. Buxton leading off may add 50 RBI to Dozier's season total. Plus you've got Buxton distracting every pitcher, making them throw more fastballs for fear that any off-speed pitch is like handing Buxton a stolen base. Not just more fastballs, either; more fastballs delivered with a rushed motion, possibly off target, or right down the middle. Buxton's crazy speed puts constant pressure on the opposition. Pitchers rush their pitches, throw more fastballs. Infielders rush their fielding, causing mistakes. Even outfielders rush; they aren't sure where to throw the ball, to second or third?

 

It sure is fun to watch Byron Buxton disrupt the opposition.

50 RBI? Wow! Move him to #3 and it'll add 100!

[jimbo92107]

Obviously Byron Buxton will still need to make adjustments to major league pitching. These guys are in the majors because they throw stuff that is extremely difficult to hit. Their command is better and their stuff is better than almost anybody Buxton faced in AA. Still, he was able to hit John Danks. Not the tallest mountain, but he's a pro.

 

If Buxton can get a hit or two off Jeff Samardzija, then I'll really be impressed. I hope Molitor leaves him at leadoff. That's clearly where Buxton is most comfortable, and by his minor league stats, it's his most productive spot.

[spinowner]

 

Hunter said, "With Buxton on base, I think Dozier gets more fastballs."

 

Dozier looked pretty happy yesterday. Buxton leading off may add 50 RBI to Dozier's season total. Plus you've got Buxton distracting every pitcher, making them throw more fastballs for fear that any off-speed pitch is like handing Buxton a stolen base. Not just more fastballs, either; more fastballs delivered with a rushed motion, possibly off target, or right down the middle. Buxton's crazy speed puts constant pressure on the opposition. Pitchers rush their pitches, throw more fastballs. Infielders rush their fielding, causing mistakes. Even outfielders rush; they aren't sure where to throw the ball, to second or third?

 

It sure is fun to watch Byron Buxton disrupt the opposition.

But you can't steal first base.

[tobi0040]

 

Obviously Byron Buxton will still need to make adjustments to major league pitching. These guys are in the majors because they throw stuff that is extremely difficult to hit. Their command is better and their stuff is better than almost anybody Buxton faced in AA. Still, he was able to hit John Danks. Not the tallest mountain, but he's a pro.

 

If Buxton can get a hit or two off Jeff Samardzija, then I'll really be impressed. I hope Molitor leaves him at leadoff. That's clearly where Buxton is most comfortable, and by his minor league stats, it's his most productive spot.

 

Jeff S. maybe the most over-rated pitcher in the league.  His ERA this year is 4.67. Career just under 4.00.  Yet the guy is getting traded every year for top talent and people speak as if he is a top 10 pitcher.

[Craig Arko]

But you can't steal first base.

Well, you can; it's just not recommended.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/brewers/2013/04/19/brewers-jean-segura-steals-first-base/2098519/

[jimmer]

 

Jeff S. maybe the most over-rated pitcher in the league.  His ERA this year is 4.67. Career just under 4.00.  Yet the guy is getting traded every year for top talent and people speak as if he is a top 10 pitcher.

His ERA is 4.67, but his FIP is 3.66 and he hasn't had a FIP over 3.77 since the year before he became a regular starter.  And, honestly, I haven't heard anyone say he's a top 10 pitcher, or even a top 20 pitcher.  What he is a quality pitcher capable of being a good #2 or great #3. Consistently.

[tobi0040]

 

His ERA is 4.67, but his FIP is 3.66 and he hasn't had a FIP over 3.77 since the year before he became a regular starter.  And, honestly, I haven't heard anyone say he's a top 10 pitcher, or even a top 20 pitcher.  What he is a quality pitcher capable of being a good #2 or great #3. Consistently.

 

If memory serves, he is demanding a $100M or more deal.  He was the key piece in a deal with Addison Russell.  There was sheer panic on these boards when the White Sox traded for him.  I also believe that when you have a track record of 800+ IP, the gap between FIP and ERA becomes less meaningful. 

 

I agree with you regarding 2 or 3, although great #3 is a bit of an oxymoron....but it just seems his reputation outweighs his production. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I agree with you regarding 2 or 3, although great #3 is a bit of an oxymoron....but it just seems his reputation outweighs his production. 

It really does. This is his fifth year as a starter and he's had two very good seasons (120, 125 ERA+). He had one good season (107 ERA+). He had one kinda bad season (89 ERA+) and this season is pretty bad (82 ERA+).

 

When he's on, he's quite good. When he's not, he's nothing remarkable. The good Samardzija and the bad Samardzija seem to weigh in about equally.

 

He's a more inconsistent version of, say, Matt Garza. I'd rather have Garza in his prime because you don't know if you're getting Good Jeff or Bad Jeff in any given season.

[tobi0040]

 

It really does. This is his fifth year as a starter and he's had two very good seasons (120, 125 ERA+). He had one good season (107 ERA+). He had one kinda bad season (89 ERA+) and this season is pretty bad (82 ERA+).

 

When he's on, he's quite good. When he's not, he's nothing remarkable. The good Samardzija and the bad Samardzija seem to weigh in about equally.

 

He's a more inconsistent version of, say, Matt Garza. I'd rather have Garza in his prime because you don't know if you're getting Good Jeff or Bad Jeff in any given season.

 

That is why I really, really hope that huge $100M+ deal from the White Sox.

 

Here is a really, really good article on his value.

 

They comp him with Bailey, which they say was a bad contract at 5-85.  That is actually the same offer that Jeff turned down from the Cubs.

 

Their analysis is he should be a rental and not a guy to extend.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/so-what-should-a-jeff-samardzija-extension-cost/

 

[jokin]

 

It really does. This is his fifth year as a starter and he's had two very good seasons (120, 125 ERA+). He had one good season (107 ERA+). He had one kinda bad season (89 ERA+) and this season is pretty bad (82 ERA+).

 

When he's on, he's quite good. When he's not, he's nothing remarkable. The good Samardzija and the bad Samardzija seem to weigh in about equally.

 

He's a more inconsistent version of, say, Matt Garza. I'd rather have Garza in his prime because you don't know if you're getting Good Jeff or Bad Jeff in any given season.

 

Going into 2015, 3 of the previous 4 years as a starter he was good to very good (using your own definition).  That seems to refute your "coin flip" conclusion of the Shark.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That is why I really, really hope that huge $100M+ deal from the White Sox.

Yep, I actually hope that Samardzija turns it around a bit for the Sox in the second half so they're tempted into throwing piles of money at him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Going into 2015, 3 of the previous 4 years as a starter he was good to very good (using your own definition).  That seems to refute your "coin flip" conclusion of the Shark.

His 107 ERA+ came in his first year as a starter, which was followed by an 89 ERA+ in his second season.

 

Then he one (not two as I said earlier) very good season. I misread the stat line.

 

And he's pretty terrible this season.

 

One good season, one kinda bad, one very good, one pretty bad. That sounds inconsistent to me.

 

ERA+ by season as a starter:

107

89

125

82

[tobi0040]

 

Going into 2015, 3 of the previous 4 years as a starter he was good to very good (using your own definition).  That seems to refute your "coin flip" conclusion of the Shark.

 

We are counting the year he had 88 innings. 

 

We can slice and dice a million ways.  But he is 30 years old with a career ERA + of 100 and someone is going to throw $90-100M at him.  Granted he was a year older, but Ervin Santana had an ERA + of 99 and received 4-55. 

 

That means over-rated to me.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Since becoming a full-time starter four seasons ago, his ERA+ is 101.

[jimmer]

 

If memory serves, he is demanding a $100M or more deal.  He was the key piece in a deal with Addison Russell.  There was sheer panic on these boards when the White Sox traded for him.  I also believe that when you have a track record of 800+ IP, the gap between FIP and ERA becomes less meaningful. 

 

I agree with you regarding 2 or 3, although great #3 is a bit of an oxymoron....but it just seems his reputation outweighs his production. 

How is saying great #3 an oxymoron.  You'd be comparing his performance (FIP) against league average #3 in the same way you'd be comparing his numbers to league average #2 pitchers when you say he's a good #2. His numbers would be great compared to other #3s.  And let's not undervalue what a consistent #3 pitcher in the league is worth, especially when he throws 200 IP and sports a FIP in the mid 3s.  That's a quality asset.

 

As far as your comment between FIP and ERA, I don't know why you'd believe that 800 IP would be the cutoff (and he has less than that as a starter anyway) and/or why it means anything in the context of our conversation. Since he's been a starter he has done very well in the context of FIP, which I believe is a much better indicator of performance from year to year than ERA is. 

[DaveW]

 

So you wholeheartedly agree with Rizzo hitting #2 for the Cubs? I thought that was crazy when they had a light-hitting outfielder hitting fourth.

Absolutely I agree with it. The #2 hitter is going to have more at bats then the #4 hitter, why you wouldn't want that to be your "better" hitter is beyond me.

[DaveW]

Jeff Samznajbdusbauisdijansdubzbbzznusdbausbdasdasdasasdgia   is basically Liriano. We will either get 9 runs off him or 0.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

As far as your comment between FIP and ERA, I don't know why you'd believe that 800 IP would be the cutoff  and/or why it means anything in the context of our conversation. Since he's been a starter he has done very well in the context of FIP, which I believe is a much better indicator of performance from year to year than ERA is. 

Eh, this is where I kinda get off the FIP/xFIP train. When we're talking about guys who have pitched 600+ innings (three seasons seems like a good baseline to me), I prefer ERA+ because trends can be seen with certain pitchers and FIP/xFIP. Some guys just don't pitch as well as they should in real-world situations.

 

Ricky Nolasco career:

ERA: 4.50

ERA+: 91

FIP: 3.80

xFIP: 3.78

 

What number looks closest to what you predict for a healthy Ricky Nolasco? I think it's pretty clearly the 91 ERA+. The ERA doesn't look unreasonable, either. FIP/xFIP, not so much.

 

Samardzija, like Nolasco, has underperformed compared to his FIP/xFIP. Not to the extent of Nolasco but the same trend is there. With both pitchers, they've played for multiple teams in both leagues. It's unlikely that they've been unfairly tagged by bad defenses and bad park situations during that entire stretch of time. The reality of the situation is that they're probably just not as good as FIP/xFIP tell us they are.

 

I like FIP/xFIP for most players because it's a good way to tell what should have happened and use that as a predictor for the future... but at a certain point in a guy's career, ERA/ERA+ can tell us just as much, if not more about a player.

[tobi0040]

 

Eh, this is where I kinda get off the FIP/xFIP train. When we're talking about guys who have pitched 600+ innings (three seasons seems like a good baseline to me), I prefer ERA+ because trends can be seen with certain pitchers and FIP/xFIP. Some guys just don't pitch as well as they should in real-world situations.

 

Ricky Nolasco career:

ERA: 4.50

ERA+: 91

FIP: 3.80

xFIP: 3.78

 

What number looks closest to what you predict for a healthy Ricky Nolasco? I think it's pretty clearly the 91 ERA+. The ERA doesn't look unreasonable, either. FIP/xFIP, not so much.

 

Samardzija, like Nolasco, has underperformed compared to his FIP/xFIP. Not to the extent of Nolasco but the same trend is there. With both pitchers, they've played for multiple teams in both leagues. It's unlikely that they've been unfairly tagged by bad defenses and bad park situations during that entire stretch of time. The reality of the situation is that they're probably just not as good as FIP/xFIP tell us they are.

 

I like FIP/xFIP for most players because it's a good way to tell what should have happened and use that as a predictor for the future... but at a certain point in a guy's career, ERA/ERA+ can tell us just as much, if not more about a player.

 

Agreed.  FIP/xFIP tends to favor guys that strike guys out.   Ricky Nolasco's FIP relative to his ERA will always be better than a guy like Kyle Gibson.   At some point....a body of work takes over for projection. 

 

What exactly is the cut off?  Is it the 800 I threw out there?  The 600 Brock did?  I am not sure.  But when you have recorded 2,000 outs, projections are less valuable relative to actual results.  That is my point.

[jimmer]

 

Eh, this is where I kinda get off the FIP/xFIP train. When we're talking about guys who have pitched 600+ innings (three seasons seems like a good baseline to me), I prefer ERA+ because trends can be seen with certain pitchers and FIP/xFIP. Some guys just don't pitch as well as they should in real-world situations.

 

Ricky Nolasco career:

ERA: 4.50

ERA+: 91

FIP: 3.80

xFIP: 3.78

 

What number looks closest to what you predict for a healthy Ricky Nolasco? I think it's pretty clearly the 91 ERA+. The ERA doesn't look unreasonable, either. FIP/xFIP, not so much.

 

Samardzija, like Nolasco, has underperformed compared to his FIP/xFIP. Not to the extent of Nolasco but the same trend is there. With both pitchers, they've played for multiple teams in both leagues. It's unlikely that they've been unfairly tagged by bad defenses and bad park situations during that entire stretch of time. The reality of the situation is that they're probably just not as good as FIP/xFIP tell us they are.

 

I like FIP/xFIP for most players because it's a good way to tell what should have happened and use that as a predictor for the future... but at a certain point in a guy's career, ERA/ERA+ can tell us just as much, if not more about a player.

He has under-performed only if you think ERA or ERA+ is the best performance indicator of a pitchers talent year to year, which I don't. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agreed.  FIP/xFIP tends to favor guys that strike guys out.   Ricky Nolasco's FIP relative to his ERA will always be better than a guy like Kyle Gibson.   At some point....a body of work takes over for projection. 

Yep. At some point, projections need to fall aside and be replaced with real-world performance.

 

You can't do that with a guy going into his third season of baseball so FIP/xFIP is a useful tool... But once a guy is several years into his career, the real-world numbers become, well, reality.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

We are counting the year he had 88 innings. 

 

We can slice and dice a million ways.  But he is 30 years old with a career ERA + of 100 and someone is going to throw $90-100M at him.  Granted he was a year older, but Ervin Santana had an ERA + of 99 and received 4-55. 

 

That means over-rated to me.

Keep in mind, Ervin Santana himself was seeking a $100 million deal two years ago.  Shark's not necessarily going to get that kind of money.  Since he hasn't yet from the White Sox, despite rumors around the time they acquired him, and he's laid an egg in the first half of the season, I highly doubt he will fetch that kind of money.

 

At this point, the evidence of his over-datedness is that he was traded (with another decent SP) for a top prospect in the middle of perhaps his career year, and then flipped again for a couple lesser prospects after said season, entering his walk year.

 

In actuality, he might just be a poster boy for the new draft compensation rules -- his trade value was set to plummet as soon as the 2015 season began, because the acquiring team could not get a comp pick for him.  So the Cubs sent him packing early, the A's bought him early so they could use him and flip him, and the White Sox bought him early enough to keep the qualifying offer and draft compensation in play.

[jimmer]

 

Yep. At some point, projections need to fall aside and be replaced with real-world performance.

 

You can't do that with a guy going into his third season of baseball so FIP/xFIP is a useful tool... But once a guy is several years into his career, the real-world numbers become, well, reality.

you believe ERA is more of a real world performance indicator for a pitcher than FIP? 

[tobi0040]

 

How is saying great #3 an oxymoron.  You'd be comparing his performance (FIP) against league average #3 in the same way you'd be comparing his numbers to league average #2 pitchers when you say he's a good #2. His numbers would be great compared to other #3s.  And let's not undervalue what a consistent #3 pitcher in the league is worth, especially when he throws 200 IP and sports a FIP in the mid 3s.  That's a quality asset.

 

By definition a #3 starter is average.  So saying a guy is a great average starter sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[jimmer]

'FIP is a measurement of a pitcher’s performance that strips out the role of defense, luck, and sequencing, making it a more stable indicator (not predictor) of how a pitcher actually performed over a given period of time than a runs allowed based statistic that would be highly dependent on the quality of defense played behind him, for example. Certain pitchers have shown an ability to consistently post lower ERAs than their FIP suggests, but overall FIP captures most pitchers’ true performance quite well.'

 

 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/fip/

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He has under-performed only if you think ERA or ERA+ is the best performance indicator of a pitchers talent year to year, which I don't. 

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. I intentionally used Nolasco because he has played in multiple leagues and for multiple teams. He has consistently underperformed what he should be doing on the field according to advanced metrics (as has Samardzija in three of his four seasons as a starter).

 

At that point, one of the following needs to be acknowledged:

 

1. Ricky Nolasco struggles in real-world situations, lowering his overall numbers

2. The metric is somewhat broken when applied to certain styles of players

 

Either way, it casts doubt on the ability of the metric to accurately predict the performance of that player and therefore, I fall back to that player's actual real-world numbers to predict future performance.

[jimmer]

 

By definition a #3 starter is average.  So saying a guy is a great average starter sounds like an oxymoron to me.

it's being used as a comparative term in this case.  Anyway...

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

you believe ERA is more of a real world performance indicator for a pitcher than FIP? 

I'm hesitant to say that about ERA but when we're talking about an MLB player with 4+ seasons under his belt, I often put more stock in ERA+ than I do FIP/xFIP.

[tobi0040]

 

Keep in mind, Ervin Santana himself was seeking a $100 million deal two years ago.  Shark's not necessarily going to get that kind of money.  Since he hasn't yet from the White Sox, despite rumors around the time they acquired him, and he's laid an egg in the first half of the season, I highly doubt he will fetch that kind of money.

 

At this point, the evidence of his over-datedness is that he was traded (with another decent SP) for a top prospect in the middle of perhaps his career year, and then flipped again for a couple lesser prospects after said season, entering his walk year.

 

In actuality, he might just be a poster boy for the new draft compensation rules -- his trade value was set to plummet as soon as the 2015 season began, because the acquiring team could not get a comp pick for him.  So the Cubs sent him packing early, the A's bought him early so they could use him and flip him, and the White Sox bought him early enough to keep the qualifying offer and draft compensation in play.

 

True regarding Santana.  But Jeff S. actually turned down 5-85.  I am guessing the best deal that Ervin ever saw was the 4-55 we gave him.