For all you armchair pitching experts...

[LaBombo]

I just think it would be refreshing for many people to actually acknowledge that their astute "opinions" might actually be wrong.

Tried to post that very thing, but the TD server seemed tied up with an unusually heavy amount of traffic. My guess is that it's a whole bunch of TD posters walking back their 'Aaron Hicks: 2013 RoY!' predictions. Maybe once those die down the 'Correia haterz' will be able to complete their penance for CC's dazzling start.

[ThePuck]

Maybe once those die down the 'Correia haterz' will be able to complete their penance for CC's dazzling start.

 

who is CC?

[snepp]

who is CC?

 

Cevin Correia, duh.

[LaBombo]

who is CC?

Denton True "Cy" Correia. C^2 to his cybermetric fan club.

[Linus]

I actually agree with you on this point. I thought this team had potential in the regular lineup and enough pieces to put together a decent bullpen. My main point isn't to give credit to TR for who he signed, rather that it seems plausible that he correctly assessed who he shouldn't sign. He has really improved the organization from top to bottom in a very short period of time. This seems to be lost in the forum.

[ThePuck]

I see....next question, does everyone know that with the stat ERA-, the lower the number, the better the pitcher did?

 

ERA- of 86 good. ERA- of 110, bad.

[cmathewson]

I'll grant you that. I think it stems from two things: 1) we've gone through this whole exercise too many times in the past with guys like Marquis, Livan, Ponson, Ortiz, etc; and 2) they left so much money on the table to sign two of the cheapest guys available.

 

I know that, in my case, both those things were contributors. But what really irked me was that I thought the offense and bullpen both had a chance to be pretty good, and that Ryan was doing the rest of the team a real disservice with such a half-assed effort to turn around the rotation. Correia and Pelfrey, in a best-case scenario, will be mediocre inning-eaters. The front office pretty much acknowledged that.

 

Through these first few weeks, that very scenario has played out. The offense and bullpen both look pretty legit. But the Twins have the third-worst starting pitching ERA in the league, and that's with Correia pitching out of his mind. Their strikeout rate is hideous and that won't change soon. They're not going to be able to sustainably play winning baseball with the rotation they've put together. That's what is frustrating. Four good starts from Correia to start the season don't cover up that reality.

 

I took a different tack. I thought that they had an OK stop-gap rotation late last year with Diamond, De Vries, Deduno, Hendriks and Hernandez. Whatever pitchers they added would improve that. I was pleased with the Worley acquisition. I thought Corriea had a chance to eat some innings. And I thought between Pelfrey and Gibson, they had a decent upgrade for one of the guys in the bottom of the rotation. Whatever happened, they had depth, which was the most they would need in a transition year.

 

That it was a transition year was clear from the roster: five positions with less than one full year of major league experience at the position. Why spend a ton of money in a year when everything has to go right to win? My main complaint was with Correia's second year. But, whatever. We've DFAed guys to whom we owed more (Blackburn).

[ThePuck]

note: I see that his ERA- for 2012 is now 110. Not sure what changed since I made the spreadsheet a few months ago.

 

what changed was 110 was his ERA- overall as a pitcher, 109 was when he was a starter. Additionally, of the 89 starters who pitched 160 or more inning, he ranked 64th.

 

Additionally, like I wrote earlier, Fangraphs had his 2012 value at 2.6M. We will pay him almost double that in each of the next two seasons...and last year was his best season, by far, of his last three seasons (worth negative money in 2010 and 2011). By comparison, we're only paying Doumit half of what he was worth last year in each of the next two seasons. :-)

[Guest USAFChief]

I see....next question, does everyone know that with the stat ERA-, the lower the number, the better the pitcher did?

 

ERA- of 86 good. ERA- of 110, bad.

Yeah, I don't quite get the "-" thing. Why would anyone even think that's a good way to illustrate anything, much less use it? I understand "ERA+" (and "OPS+") but the reverse is just so...counterintuitive as to be more confusing than insightful.

[snepp]

I like it, but that's probably due to familiarity by now. We look at lower ERAs being better than higher, it's same for the ERA-/FIP- measures.

[jorgenswest]

what changed was 110 was his ERA- overall as a pitcher, 109 was when he was a starter. Additionally, of the 89 starters who pitched 160 or more inning, he ranked 64th.

 

Additionally, like I wrote earlier, Fangraphs had his 2012 value at 2.6M. We will pay him almost double that in each of the next two seasons...and last year was his best season, by far, of his last three seasons (worth negative money in 2010 and 2011). By comparison, we're only paying Doumit half of what he was worth last year in each of the next two seasons. :-)

 

Thanks. Of course, in the study I only used performance in games started. I wasn't doing it for Correia, but rather to understand what to expect from a number 3 (or 4 or 2) starter.

 

As for Doumit, he is valuable as a hitter. Fangraphs does not factor in the pitch fx studies first pioneered by Mike Fast in their defensive calculations. So that deficit is not part of their calculation. If he is only a hitter and we ignore the catching deficit, comps in last winter's market might have been Chavez or Hafner.

 

For some reason Correia outperformed his FIP the last two years and continues to this year. Some explain it as luck. His fangraphs WAR is FIP based. Let's hope he stays lucky.