One of the visitors who leaves comments on this blog, Dave, gave a lot of thought to the one he left on September 9; however, his philosophy as how the New York Mets should fill vacancies in their 2008 starting rotation differs dramatically from mine.
I'd commented that I'd set aside spots for Tom Glavine and El Duque, if they both return, and put the other three up for grabs. That seemed to surprise Dave, who responded "Have they [Maine and Perez] not already proven themselves as legitimate starters this season?"
That's a valid question.
"Proven" themselves? To me, no.
In my book, a pitcher has proven himself when he can produce quality starts on a consistent basis. As of September 8th, Tom Glavine had 21 quality starts in 29 starts (72%), El Duque 17 in 23 (74%), John Maine 15 in 28 (54%), and Oliver Perez 14 in 25 (56%).
A pitcher who can produce a quality start in at least 70% of his starts has proven himself to me. A pitcher who can only produce a quality start about half the time he's on the mound hasn't. Glavine has proven himself, as has El Duque.
As a result, I'd make both John Maine and Oliver Perez compete for spots with Mike Pelfrey, Philip Humber, Adam Bostick, Jason Vargas, and Kevin Mulvey. The Mets need to give their best pitching prospects a better chance to make it into their rotation than they have in the past. Otherwise,what message are they sending to them? Pitch well so you can pitch for someone else?
In pro football, many coaches in training camp encourage competition for all positions except possibly a few manned by stars. It adds a spark to the camp. If the Mets did that next string training with their starting rotation, I believe it would have the same effect. If either Maine or Perez complains, so be it. Let's see if they have the wherewithal to ward off the challengers. And if they don't, that should send a message loud-and-clear to the Mets front office.
It's all about winning, not maintaining the status quo just to keep players happy.
To make matters more interesting, the Mets should invite Dylan Owen to spring training. Last night in Brooklyn's first playoff game, Owen pitched five innings of four-hit, no walk, shutout ball in which he struck out seven. He's continuing to pitch in the playoffs as he did during the regular season when he led the New York-Penn League in both wins and ERA while compiling a strikeout to walk ratio of almost 6 to 1. If any Mets' pitching prospect deserves a chance to rub shoulders with its big leaguers, it's Owen. And though he's a long shot to win a spot in the rotation, he's a winner, so I wouldn't bet against him.
Finally — Dave, keep the comments coming. You've stirred up my thinking, and I really appreciate it.
Indeed the comments will keep on coming. I do appreciate and enjoy the debate.
ReplyDeleteTo business: I think there are a few things that need to be established before we go any further.
1. What do you qualify as a "quality" start? I agree that the quality start is an important stat when guaging the effectiveness of a SP, however the term quality is relative to his respective team's offense. Sure, 7 innings of 2-run ball is better than 6 innings of 4-run ball, but both should be good enough to win games for the Mets.
2. What's the ML average of starting pitcher's quality starts ratio? I ask this b/c, compared to Glavine and El Duque's alleged 70-percentile, Perez and Maine look like bums. But, perhaps compared to the ML average, 56 and 54 percent, respectively, are still above average ratios.
I also think it's a bit narrow-minded to only consider quality starts when judging pitchers. Certainly Perez' 14 wins, 3.42 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, and 156 K are good enough to earn him a spot on any team's rotation. And Maine's 14 wins, 3.80 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, and 146 K aren't half bad either.
I wouldn't be handing them rotation spots to simply appease them. By most people's standards, they've already earned jobs in the rotation for next season. What message would you be sending them to make them compete for their spots on the ballclub next year after what they've done in 2007? Would you not be worried in the least they'd resent that you pretty much called their seasons flukes? And remember, Pedro, Glavine, and El Duque are our 1 thru 3 pitchers. Perez and Maine would comprise our 4 and 5. Can you think of a better 4 and 5 pitching combination in baseball? I think, sometimes as fans of winning teams, we tend to get a little spoiled and take for granted the talent we already have.
In addition, letting them compete for their job in Spring Training could have horrific results. Not only are you opening the opportunity for them to over exert themselves and get injured, but you're also judging their talent on a very small sample in March, and in the process ignoring their accomplishments from the entire previous year's regular season. So just because Mulvey outperforms Perez in the preseason you'd award him with the 5th rotation spot? That wouldn't have my vote. Furthermore, what, then, do you do with Perez or Maine if they don't make the rotation? A pair of 14 game winners have a chance to be mop-up men, demoted to the minors, or released?
Howard, if it really is all about winning, Perez and Maine HAVE already proven themselves. In no way do they deserve to have to compete for their jobs all over again in 2008.
Q1. What do you qualify as a "quality" start?
ReplyDeleteA1. I adhere to the traditional definition: The pitcher pitches at least six innings in which he allows three or fewer earned runs.
Baseball Prospectus has stated that "Teams who get a quality start as defined by the six-inning/three-run baseline are winning 69.8 percent of this year’s games, as compared to 68.0 percent via the earned run definition, and 67.4 percent via Neyer’s historical figures." To me, that in itself attests to the value of quality starts.
Q2. What's the ML average of starting pitcher's quality starts ratio?
A2. I don't know the average, but I can tell you the median, as that's easily determined from data on espn.com. Of the 67 NL pitchers who've pitched at least 100 innings this season, the median quality starts percentage is 54%.
Q3. I also think it's a bit narrow-minded to only consider quality starts when judging pitchers. Certainly Perez' 14 wins, 3.42 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, and 156 K are good enough to earn him a spot on any team's rotation. And Maine's 14 wins, 3.80 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, and 146 K aren't half bad either.
A3. I prefer to think of myself as focused. I agree that quality starts, though an excellent statistic, shouldn't be the only one considered when evaluating a pitcher's performance.
Q4. By most people's standards, they've already earned jobs in the rotation for next season. What message would you be sending them to make them compete for their spots on the ballclub next year after what they've done in 2007?
A4. What if the Mets traded both Pelfrey and Humber for Johan Santana. What would you do then with the starting rotation?
On the other hand, assume you've guaranteed both Maine and Perez spots in next season's starting rotation. What if one has, or both have, a terrible spring training in 2008 while Humber and/or Pelfrey pitches amazingly well? You're stuck with them because of the guarantee you made. What message is that sending to Pelfrey and Humber?
Q5. Can you think of a better 4 and 5 pitching combination in baseball?
A5. I'd have to look into that before I can answer, but you could be right.
Q6. What, then, do you do with Perez or Maine if they don't make the rotation? A pair of 14 game winners have a chance to be mop-up men, demoted to the minors, or released?
A6. Along those same lines, what do you do with Pelfrey and/or Humber if they have excellent springs and don't make the rotation?
What to do with Pelfrey and Humber if they have spectacular spring trainings is easy: send them to the minors. They are the ones still with options to be demoted, not Perez and Maine. The message you send them is, "keep pitching well on a consistent basis in order to make the ballclub, and be prepared in case one of our top 5 starters goes down with injury." But again, I still think it's risky business to comprise your starting pitching staff solely based on spring training performances. Most pitchers are simply working on certain pitches and finding their locations and arm slots, not trying to throw 7 innings of shutout ball. A veteran pitcher with an ERA over 10 in March is still very capable of being a servicable pitcher with the big club come opening day. I just think you're putting too much stock in spring training statistics.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think the question was more hypothetical, I also have an easy answer for what to do if the Mets got Santana for Humber & Pelfrey. You always find room for a perennial Cy Young Award candidate. I wouldn't have a problem having Pedro, Glavine, El Duque, Perez, and Maine in '08 and trading for Johan by giving up Pelfrey, Humber, Mulvey, Milledge, and Muniz. But again, that's all hypothetical and not likely to happen.
This is a great discussion. I disagree with Howard's emphasis on quality starts. First, a quality start is when a starter goes at least 6 IP while giving up 3 ER or less. For the math wizards, we will calculate ERA off of that pitching line: 3 ER times 9 divided by 6 IP. This equals an ERA of 4.50.
ReplyDeleteNow of course, they'd make you think Perez and Maine have had pitched that badly, but they haven't. And on top of that, are they even making above the minimum.
Perez, Maine, and Pedro are locks for next year's rotation. IMO, not letting Pelfrey have the fifth spot in the rotation kill a key part in his development time. While Humber certainly hasn't been terrific in 2007, at 24, he doesn't have much to prove in AAA.
I have Humber and Pelf competing for the fifth spot next year, with one of three things happening:
1) Not playing politics and just let Glavine go, as I proposed here: http://www.flushinguniversity.com/moxie/columns/the-beginning-and-end-of-.shtml
2) Trade El Duque while his value's high.
3) Keep El Duque in the pen as a long reliever, but the thinking is that he'll end up starting often considering there will always be someone injured. I agree that might be best for El Duque's health and overall effectiveness next year, but at $6.5 million and when we will still have either Humber/Pelf, Mulvey, and some AAA scrub who could also always fill in, I'm not in favor of this idea.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI think that what it comes down to is that you're more impressed with Maine and Perez than I am. Logically, I understand what you're saying. But I might have a higher standard for what I expect from Mets pitchers, and neither Maine nor Perez has yet to meet that standard.
On the other hand, Glavine has. If you haven't had a chance to look at it yet, take a look at the column I wrote last week about Glavine. A link to it is at the top of my right sidebar, above the poll.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteIn your comment you wrote that "For the math wizards, we will calculate ERA off of that pitching line: 3 ER times 9 divided by 6 IP. This equals an ERA of 4.50."
You're acting on the assumption that every quality start involves three runs. That's misleading.
In a quality start, a pitcher can give up anywhere from 0-3 runs. If we knew the average number of runs given up in a quality start, and the average number of innings, we could reach more valid conclusions.
You also might find this article interesting: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6667