One of the biggest things coming in the 2011 offseason is the impending free agency of Albert Pujols. He looks to command the biggest contract in MLB history, even corralling 30 million dollars a year. But who will pay him that kind of money? Let's go through the teams and see what the odds are for each team signing Pujols.
No chance
30. Rays
The Rays need help at first base, but considering they couldn't re-sign Carl Crawford or Carlos Pena, how in the world would they sign Pujols? Even if they have a small payroll and there's no chance they'll commit over half their 2012 salary to one player. There's a zero chance Pujols goes to the Rays.
Odds: 1 in 4,000,000,000
29. Royals
The Royals have a tiny payroll and Eric Hosmer as their first baseman of the future. The Royals don't need to make a big splash in free agency with the top prospects coming, and even if they did, they don't have anywhere near the money to sign Pujols. Pujols will not be going across the state of Missouri to Kansas City in 2012.
Odds: 1 in 1,000,000,000
28. Pirates
When was the last time the Pirates signed a big free agent? They just don't have the payroll. Lyle Overbay (arguably their biggest free agent signing of the 2010 offseason) isn't the long-term answer at first base, but the Pirates will have to look to the farm system or lower-tier free agents because Pujols will not be a Pirate (although I could see the headline now: "Pujols a Pirate").
Odds: 1 in 90,000,000
27. Blue Jays
The Jays couldn't even sign their own big impending free agent, Roy Halladay. How in the world would they sign Pujols?
Odds: 1 in 75,000,000
26. Diamondbacks
They haven't had a big signing in quite a while. Prospect Brandon Allen is the first baseman is the future, and he's certainly not a sure thing, and also the D-backs made a run at Paul Konerko, but they just don't have anywhere near enough money to make a run at Pujols.
Odds: 1 in 60,000,000
25. Brewers
If the Brewers had the money to sign Pujols, they would have extended Prince Fielder. Also, they just signed Ryan Braun to a huge deal.
Odds: 1 in 50,000,000
24. Padres
Ditto Brewers, but for Adrian Gonzalez. They haven't signed anybody to a big extension, but they have never had a lot of money to begin with.
Odds: 1 in 45,000,000
23. Reds
The Reds have a player they can build around in Joey Votto at first base, and they're a small-market team anyway.
Odds: 1 in 35,000,000
22. Indians
The Indians are playing out of their mind right now and you would think that they just need to continue adding fuel to the fire to keep contending. But, they have a good combination of veterans and young players right now, and they would certainly extend Grady Sizemore before signing Pujols. Not to mention that they don't have the money to sign Pujols anyway.
Odds: 1 in 20,000,000
21. Twins
The Twins have Justin Morneau at first base, and it's unlikely that they'll be able to afford another high-priced player.
Odds: 1 in 10,000,000
20. Giants
The Giants have Aubrey Huff and Brandon Belt, and we know they don't have 30 million dollars lying around.
Odds: 1 in 8,000,000
19. White Sox
The White Sox have some money, but they have both Paul Konerko and Adam Dunn. They're not signing Pujols.
Odds: 1 in 7,500,000
18. Mets
The Mets have had cash in the past, but we know that the Wilpons are cash-stricken and looking to add a minority owner. Even if they did somehow get the money, they'll be much more worried about signing Jose Reyes anyway. And of course, they have a promising player in Ike Davis at first base.
Odds: 1 in 5,000,000
17. Astros
They're getting a new owner, so you never no what their payroll would be, but they have Brett Wallace at first base, and the new owner wouldn't want to commit most of his payroll to Pujols.
Odds: 1 in 3,000,000
16. Athletics
The A's don't have the money, but I feel like Billy Beane could pull off a crazy sign-and-trade or something.
Odds: 1 in 2,500,000
15. Mariners
The Mariners have signed a couple of big free agents in recent years, but they don't appear to be contending anytime soon, and they have Justin Smoak, who should be manning first base for years to come.
Odds: 1 in 2,000,000
14. Marlins
The Marlins want to make a splash as they're moving into their new stadium, and they did spend a bit more money in the 2010 offseason, but 30 million dollars is a ton of money, and unless Pujols gives the Fish a "hometown discount" because they're the closest MLB team to the Dominican public, the Marlins won't be able to sign him.
Odds: 1 in 1,000,000
Probably not
13. Phillies
The entire baseball world is hoping that the Phillies don't scrape together enough pennies to sign Albert Pujols. I'm sure Ryan Howard is hoping too.
Odds: 1 in 10,000
12. Braves
The Braves have Freddie Freeman at first, and they don't have limitless funds, but they've made runs at big players in recent years.
Odds: 1 in 7,500
11. Tigers
Maybe the Tigers have money, but they have Miguel Cabrera, and they would have to catch Victor Martinez more often to fit in Pujols at DH. They'd also have to convince Pujols to play left field on an irregular basis (he did play most of 2003 in left field, but he hasn't played there since).
Odds: 1 in 5,000
10. Rockies
The Rockies have extended Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzalez. Is there any money left?
Odds: 1 in 3,500
9. Angels
The Angels made runs at Adrian Beltre and Carl Crawford this past offseason, but failed to sign either of them, and they traded for the pricey Vernon Wells. The Angels don't have quite enough money to sign Pujols, and they also have two promising first baseman in Kendrys Morales and Mark Trumbo.
Odds: 1 in 2000
9. Red Sox
The Red Sox might have the money, but with Adrian Gonzalez at third, David Ortiz at DH, and even Carl Crawford in left field, the Red Sox would have to convince Pujols to play right field. Pujols did play 39 games there in 2001, but he has had some elbow problems since, and playing right field could kill his elbow and endanger his career. It's not impossible, but it's certainly a long-shot.
Odds: 1 in 1000
Don't completely count them out
7. Dodgers
They've spent quite a bit of money in the past. If they ever get that FOX TV deal signed, and their ownership situation resolved you never know what will happen, but the chances are certainly against Pujols being a Dodger.
Odds: 1 in 100
6. Orioles
The Orioles are starting to spend some money, and Derrek Lee was signed to just a one-year contract, but 30 million dollars is seemingly too much.
Odds: 1 in 75
5. Rangers
The Rangers have been spending money lately, but they already have a ton of money on the books and a logjam of players playing first base/DH including Mike Napoli and Michael Young. They theoretically could sign Pujols, but they probably will decide not to.
Odds: 1 in 60
4. Nationals
The Nats signed Jason Werth this past offseason and Adam LaRoche is coming off the books after the season, so you never know for sure.
Odds: 1 in 40
3. Yankees
You may think I'm crazy, but Pujols going to the Yankees is a semi-realistic possibility. It would be the same of situation as the Red Sox above with Mark Teixeira at first base, but the Yankees would certainly move Brett Gardner to give Pujols time in left field, and if they could sign Pujols, they would certainly be willing to trade Jesus Montero to give him time at DH as well.
Odds: 1 in 20
Contenders
2. Cubs
The Cubs have new owners, the Ricketts, and are dying to make Pujols a part of their team. They might actually be able to offer Pujols a 10 year, 300 million dollar contract. But would Pujols leave St. Louis?
Odds: 2 in 5
1. Cardinals
The Cardinals have been Pujols' team the past 11 years. They won a championship with him and have built a solid team around him. Why should he leave? But will the Cardinals offer him the 30 million a year?
Odds: 12 in 25
Results
Cardinals- 48% chance of re-signing Pujols
Cubs- 40% chance of signing Pujols
Yankees- 5% chance of signing Pujols
Nationals- 2.5% chance of signing Pujols
Rangers- 1.7% chance of signing Pujols
The field- 2.7% chance of signing Pujols
It's Cubs-Cardinals for the rights to have Pujols with the Yankees, Nationals, and Rangers having outside chances and every other team barely being involved if part of the picture at all. This should be interesting.
Showing posts with label Nationals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nationals. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Last season, my friend who's a Mets fan was talking to be about how the Jerry Manuel was using Pedro Feliciano way too much. It got me thinking. What are the effects of overworking a reliever? Do they flame out within a few years? How many seasons can they last while appearing in so many games? Let's find out.
The easiest way to find overworked relievers is to look at the single-season records for most appearances by a pitcher in one season (I used baseball-reference here). Feliciano is unsurprisingly number 4 on that list. Numbers 1-3 are Mike Marshall, Kent Tekulve, and Salomon Torres. Almost shockingly, all 3 of them are righties.
Marshall was a righty closer primarily in the 70's for 10 different teams. He debuted as a closer for the Montreal Expos in 1971, appearing in 66 games with a 5-8 record, saving 23 and striking out 85 in 111.1 IP. He had appeared in just 28 games the year before (5 starts). You would think that he would have worn down as the season went on, but the exact opposite occurred. He went 1-5 with a 6.30 ERA in the first half, and 4-3 with a 2.64 ERA in the second half. In 1972, he appeared in 65 games, but he did much better, going 14-8 out of the bullpen with a 1.78 ERA, 95 K's, and 18 saves in 116 IP. He was so good that the Expos put him in for 92 games in 1973, and he did not disappoint, going 14-11 while posting a 2.66 ERA, 124 K's and 31 saves (tops in the league) in 170 IP. After the season, the Expos traded him Marshall to the Dodgers. They must have thought that he would flame out after appearing in 92 games. At least in the short-term, they were wrong. In 1974 for the Dodgers, he set the record by appearing in an incredible 106 games, going 15-12 with a 2.42 ERA, 143 K's, and 21 saves (surprisingly tops in the league) in 208.1 IP. Yeah, over 200 IP out of the bullpen. In the seasons following 1974, Marshall averaged just 44 appearances per season, although he did appear in 90 games in 1979 at age 36. From the beginning of his career in 1967 to 1974, Marshall posted a 3.01 ERA. From 1975 until the end of his career in 1981, Marshall posted a 3.34 ERA. But, you can divide that 3.34 ERA into a 3.81 ERA in the 4 seasons after 1974 and a 2.95 ERA after that. Marshall apparently shows that a reliever can't keep up the 90+ games per season rate for too long and without being less durable and less effective for at least a few years after.
Tekulve was a righty closer for the Pirates, Phillies, and Reds from the mid-70's to the late 80's. After posting a 2.65 ERA and an average of 57 appearances per season in his first 3 major league seasons, Tekulve appeared in 91 games for the Pirates in 1978, going 8-7 with a 2.33 ERA, 77 K's, and 31 saves in 135.1 IP. He then appeared in 94 games for Pittsburgh in 1979, going 10-8 with a 2.75 ERA, 75 K's, and 31 saves again in 134.1 IP. After 1979, in the 10 seasons left in his career, Tekulve posted a 2.97 ERA and averaged 69 appearances per season. He even appeared in 85 games in '82 and 90 games in '87. He posted a 2.65 ERA from the beginning of his career to 1978. Tekulve didn't really wear down or become ineffective after appearing in 90 games in consecutive seasons. But is he the exception that proves the rule?
Torres was a righty middle reliever for 5 teams in the 90's and 00's (the decade of 2001 to 2010). He only saved 57 games his entire career. He posted a 4.48 ERA and an average of 31 games per season from 1993 from 2005 (he didn't appear in any games in the majors from 1998 to 2001 because he retired). In 2006, Torres went 3-6 with a 3.28 ERA, 72 K's, and 12 K's in 94 relief appearances and 93.1 IP. He posted a 5.47 ERA in 56 games in '07, and a 3.49 ERA in 71 games in 2008, his final season. He definitely lacked durability and effectiveness in '07, but he had his finest season in '08, saving 28 games in 71 appearances. Torres is in a different category than Marshall and Tekulve because he averaged many less innings per appearance than them primarily because he played more recently. Still, Torres does correspond to the hypothesis that appearing in 90 games causes relievers to be less durable and less effective, albeit to a lesser extent.
Other notable pitchers up there on the list include Paul Quantrill, Jon Rauch, Matt Capps, Scott Proctor, Heath Bell, and Mike Gonzalez.
Quantrill , another righty, is tied for 10th with 89 appearances in 2003 in addition to being tied for 22nd (two separate seasons), 61st, 96th, and 191st from other seasons) collapsed in 2005 at age 36 after 3 straight seasons with 86 or more appearances and 4 straight with 80.
Rauch, a righty reliever, is tied for 15th after appearing in 85 games in 2006 and 88 games in 2007 for the Nationals. He has averaged 69 appearances in the three seasons since, so he's been fine. His ERA after the two straight seasons with 85+ games has actually been better than before (3.66 to 3.74).
Capps, a righty closer, has been great despite making 85 appearances in his first full season at age 22 in '06, posting a 9-1 record with a 3.76 ERA. He has averaged 64 appearances, so he's certainly durable. He did post a 5.80 ERA in '09, but he's posted ERA's under 3.03 in the other three seasons including a 2.47 ERA and 42 saves in '10.
Bell, another righty closer, appeared in 81 games in '07, posting a 2.02 ERA. But, he posted a 2.77 ERA and an average of 70 appearances per season since. He certainly has been fine.
Gonzalez, a lefty closer, posted a great 2.42 ERA in 80 games in '09 for the Braves, but showed effects of the overuse in '10, suffering a shoulder injury in April, and posted a 4.01 ERA in 29 games overall.
Proctor, you may remember, was a righty middle reliever who the Yankees who was used by Joe Torre for 83 games in '06, posting a 3.52 ERA. Proctor was traded to the Dodgers at the trade deadline in '07 and posted a 3.65 ERA in 83 games overall. He has never been effective since, posting 6.09 ERA in 47 appearances since '07, including a 6.35 ERA in 6 relief appearances for Atlanta in '10. He missed all of '09 after undergoing Tommy John Surgery.
Now, let's talk about Feliciano. He has gone where few others have, pitching in 86 or more games the last 3 seasons, including 92 appearances in '10. Feliciano certainly a different case than Marshall, Tekulve, Torres, and the other pitchers listed above. Feliciano pitches for one or two batters at a a time while Marshall and Tekulve pitched often pitched 3 innings in an appearance, and Torres and the other active or recently active players pitched an inning per appearance. It has been about 50-50 whether these relievers have been able to be durable and effective after pitching in so many games. The data apparently shows that signing pitchers who have appeared in 80 more games in a season can be a risky proposition. But, I'll say it again, Feliciano is a different case. He may appear in a lot of games, but there's not nearly the stress on his arm that there was on the arms of Marshall, Tekulve, Torres, and all the other guys because he pitches so many less innings. Feliciano is not a risk to sign as a free agent. He does not have so much stress on his arm that he will fall apart any season now. He'll collapse eventually of course (not too many pitchers didn't collapse at the end of their careers), but when he's old (pending a serious injury). The Yankees and several other teams have been talking to Feliciano. If any of the teams can agree to terms with him, then they should by all means sign him.
The easiest way to find overworked relievers is to look at the single-season records for most appearances by a pitcher in one season (I used baseball-reference here). Feliciano is unsurprisingly number 4 on that list. Numbers 1-3 are Mike Marshall, Kent Tekulve, and Salomon Torres. Almost shockingly, all 3 of them are righties.
Marshall was a righty closer primarily in the 70's for 10 different teams. He debuted as a closer for the Montreal Expos in 1971, appearing in 66 games with a 5-8 record, saving 23 and striking out 85 in 111.1 IP. He had appeared in just 28 games the year before (5 starts). You would think that he would have worn down as the season went on, but the exact opposite occurred. He went 1-5 with a 6.30 ERA in the first half, and 4-3 with a 2.64 ERA in the second half. In 1972, he appeared in 65 games, but he did much better, going 14-8 out of the bullpen with a 1.78 ERA, 95 K's, and 18 saves in 116 IP. He was so good that the Expos put him in for 92 games in 1973, and he did not disappoint, going 14-11 while posting a 2.66 ERA, 124 K's and 31 saves (tops in the league) in 170 IP. After the season, the Expos traded him Marshall to the Dodgers. They must have thought that he would flame out after appearing in 92 games. At least in the short-term, they were wrong. In 1974 for the Dodgers, he set the record by appearing in an incredible 106 games, going 15-12 with a 2.42 ERA, 143 K's, and 21 saves (surprisingly tops in the league) in 208.1 IP. Yeah, over 200 IP out of the bullpen. In the seasons following 1974, Marshall averaged just 44 appearances per season, although he did appear in 90 games in 1979 at age 36. From the beginning of his career in 1967 to 1974, Marshall posted a 3.01 ERA. From 1975 until the end of his career in 1981, Marshall posted a 3.34 ERA. But, you can divide that 3.34 ERA into a 3.81 ERA in the 4 seasons after 1974 and a 2.95 ERA after that. Marshall apparently shows that a reliever can't keep up the 90+ games per season rate for too long and without being less durable and less effective for at least a few years after.
Tekulve was a righty closer for the Pirates, Phillies, and Reds from the mid-70's to the late 80's. After posting a 2.65 ERA and an average of 57 appearances per season in his first 3 major league seasons, Tekulve appeared in 91 games for the Pirates in 1978, going 8-7 with a 2.33 ERA, 77 K's, and 31 saves in 135.1 IP. He then appeared in 94 games for Pittsburgh in 1979, going 10-8 with a 2.75 ERA, 75 K's, and 31 saves again in 134.1 IP. After 1979, in the 10 seasons left in his career, Tekulve posted a 2.97 ERA and averaged 69 appearances per season. He even appeared in 85 games in '82 and 90 games in '87. He posted a 2.65 ERA from the beginning of his career to 1978. Tekulve didn't really wear down or become ineffective after appearing in 90 games in consecutive seasons. But is he the exception that proves the rule?
Torres was a righty middle reliever for 5 teams in the 90's and 00's (the decade of 2001 to 2010). He only saved 57 games his entire career. He posted a 4.48 ERA and an average of 31 games per season from 1993 from 2005 (he didn't appear in any games in the majors from 1998 to 2001 because he retired). In 2006, Torres went 3-6 with a 3.28 ERA, 72 K's, and 12 K's in 94 relief appearances and 93.1 IP. He posted a 5.47 ERA in 56 games in '07, and a 3.49 ERA in 71 games in 2008, his final season. He definitely lacked durability and effectiveness in '07, but he had his finest season in '08, saving 28 games in 71 appearances. Torres is in a different category than Marshall and Tekulve because he averaged many less innings per appearance than them primarily because he played more recently. Still, Torres does correspond to the hypothesis that appearing in 90 games causes relievers to be less durable and less effective, albeit to a lesser extent.
Other notable pitchers up there on the list include Paul Quantrill, Jon Rauch, Matt Capps, Scott Proctor, Heath Bell, and Mike Gonzalez.
Quantrill , another righty, is tied for 10th with 89 appearances in 2003 in addition to being tied for 22nd (two separate seasons), 61st, 96th, and 191st from other seasons) collapsed in 2005 at age 36 after 3 straight seasons with 86 or more appearances and 4 straight with 80.
Rauch, a righty reliever, is tied for 15th after appearing in 85 games in 2006 and 88 games in 2007 for the Nationals. He has averaged 69 appearances in the three seasons since, so he's been fine. His ERA after the two straight seasons with 85+ games has actually been better than before (3.66 to 3.74).
Capps, a righty closer, has been great despite making 85 appearances in his first full season at age 22 in '06, posting a 9-1 record with a 3.76 ERA. He has averaged 64 appearances, so he's certainly durable. He did post a 5.80 ERA in '09, but he's posted ERA's under 3.03 in the other three seasons including a 2.47 ERA and 42 saves in '10.
Bell, another righty closer, appeared in 81 games in '07, posting a 2.02 ERA. But, he posted a 2.77 ERA and an average of 70 appearances per season since. He certainly has been fine.
Gonzalez, a lefty closer, posted a great 2.42 ERA in 80 games in '09 for the Braves, but showed effects of the overuse in '10, suffering a shoulder injury in April, and posted a 4.01 ERA in 29 games overall.
Proctor, you may remember, was a righty middle reliever who the Yankees who was used by Joe Torre for 83 games in '06, posting a 3.52 ERA. Proctor was traded to the Dodgers at the trade deadline in '07 and posted a 3.65 ERA in 83 games overall. He has never been effective since, posting 6.09 ERA in 47 appearances since '07, including a 6.35 ERA in 6 relief appearances for Atlanta in '10. He missed all of '09 after undergoing Tommy John Surgery.
Now, let's talk about Feliciano. He has gone where few others have, pitching in 86 or more games the last 3 seasons, including 92 appearances in '10. Feliciano certainly a different case than Marshall, Tekulve, Torres, and the other pitchers listed above. Feliciano pitches for one or two batters at a a time while Marshall and Tekulve pitched often pitched 3 innings in an appearance, and Torres and the other active or recently active players pitched an inning per appearance. It has been about 50-50 whether these relievers have been able to be durable and effective after pitching in so many games. The data apparently shows that signing pitchers who have appeared in 80 more games in a season can be a risky proposition. But, I'll say it again, Feliciano is a different case. He may appear in a lot of games, but there's not nearly the stress on his arm that there was on the arms of Marshall, Tekulve, Torres, and all the other guys because he pitches so many less innings. Feliciano is not a risk to sign as a free agent. He does not have so much stress on his arm that he will fall apart any season now. He'll collapse eventually of course (not too many pitchers didn't collapse at the end of their careers), but when he's old (pending a serious injury). The Yankees and several other teams have been talking to Feliciano. If any of the teams can agree to terms with him, then they should by all means sign him.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Dunn to White Sox
The Chicago White Sox have signed 1B Adam Dunn to a 4-year, 56 million dollar deal. Dunn is one of the premier power hitters in the majors right now, having averaged 40 homers and 101 RBI the last 7 seasons. He also posted a .381 OBP over that same stretch. He's certainly a great offensive player, but considering the fact that he's replacing Paul Konerko, will he improve the White Sox?
Let's compare the stats of Dunn and Konerko. Dunn hit .260 with 36 doubles, 38 homers, 103 RBI, 85 runs, and a .356 OBP (his career low) in 158 games for the Nats. He posted a below-average .990 fielding percentage (Fld%) in 153 games at first base. Konerko hit .312 with 30 doubles, 39 homers, 111 RBI, 89 runs, and a .393 OBP (his career high) in 149 games. Using OPS+, Konerko was much more valuable than Dunn, posting a 158 OPS+ to Dunn's 138. He posted a league-average .994 Fld% in 125 games at first base. The cold hard stats say that Konerko was better than Dunn in '10. It's hard to disagree.
So, will Dunn make the White Sox' offense better than it was in '10? No. But, the White Sox made the right move in signing Dunn over Konerko. Why? There are 2 factors: 1) Dunn is 4 years younger than Konerko; and 2) Konerko had a career year. When next season begins, Dunn will be 31 and Konerko will be 35. Common sense says that Dunn has more good years left in him than Konerko. Also, although Konerko had a better year than Dunn in '10, he may not do that again. His career averages per full season are a .288 BA with 28 homers and 90 RBI (I took out 1997 when he appeared in 6 games, but kept 1998, when he appeared in 75). Dunn has hit .250 with 35 homers and 88 RBI. If both players return to their career averages, Konerko will still be better because he has a better BA and more RBI per season, but you have to keep in mind that the White Sox are better than Dunn's previous teams, the Reds and Nationals (along with the D-backs for half a season) were much worse than the White Sox so Dunn will get more RBI's and he has averaged 101 RBI the last 7 seasons. His career average for RBI's is skewed because he averages 57 RBI per season from '01 to '03. Also, you have to expect Konerko to begin declining within a couple years, so the Dunn will definitely be better over the next 4 seasons.
In conclusion, although it may look like the White Sox are actually going to regress offensively by signing Dunn over Konerko, the move is definitely the right one because Dunn will definitely be better than Konerko over the life of his contract.
Let's compare the stats of Dunn and Konerko. Dunn hit .260 with 36 doubles, 38 homers, 103 RBI, 85 runs, and a .356 OBP (his career low) in 158 games for the Nats. He posted a below-average .990 fielding percentage (Fld%) in 153 games at first base. Konerko hit .312 with 30 doubles, 39 homers, 111 RBI, 89 runs, and a .393 OBP (his career high) in 149 games. Using OPS+, Konerko was much more valuable than Dunn, posting a 158 OPS+ to Dunn's 138. He posted a league-average .994 Fld% in 125 games at first base. The cold hard stats say that Konerko was better than Dunn in '10. It's hard to disagree.
So, will Dunn make the White Sox' offense better than it was in '10? No. But, the White Sox made the right move in signing Dunn over Konerko. Why? There are 2 factors: 1) Dunn is 4 years younger than Konerko; and 2) Konerko had a career year. When next season begins, Dunn will be 31 and Konerko will be 35. Common sense says that Dunn has more good years left in him than Konerko. Also, although Konerko had a better year than Dunn in '10, he may not do that again. His career averages per full season are a .288 BA with 28 homers and 90 RBI (I took out 1997 when he appeared in 6 games, but kept 1998, when he appeared in 75). Dunn has hit .250 with 35 homers and 88 RBI. If both players return to their career averages, Konerko will still be better because he has a better BA and more RBI per season, but you have to keep in mind that the White Sox are better than Dunn's previous teams, the Reds and Nationals (along with the D-backs for half a season) were much worse than the White Sox so Dunn will get more RBI's and he has averaged 101 RBI the last 7 seasons. His career average for RBI's is skewed because he averages 57 RBI per season from '01 to '03. Also, you have to expect Konerko to begin declining within a couple years, so the Dunn will definitely be better over the next 4 seasons.
In conclusion, although it may look like the White Sox are actually going to regress offensively by signing Dunn over Konerko, the move is definitely the right one because Dunn will definitely be better than Konerko over the life of his contract.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Who's ahead in the race for the NL ROY?
The NL Rookie of the Year race has so many good candidates this year. You have Stephen Strasburg, Jason Heyward, Mike Leake, Jaime Garcia, and Ike Davis. Let's go through the stats for each player and see who's really ahead in the ROY race.
Stephen Strasburg has lived up to all the hype. He is 2-2 with a 2.27 ERA and 48 K's in 5 starts and 31.2 IP. His K/9 ratio is 13.6 and his BB/9 is 2.0, both incredible. His K/BB, is 6.86. In addition, he has given up just 7.1 hits and 0.7 homers per 9 innings. His record is only 2-2 because the Nationals haven't scored any runs for him twice, and they only scored 1 run for him once. On a better team, he could be 4-1 right now. Strasburg has really been incredible so far this year.
Jason Heyward of the Braves has proven to be a good hitter so far this year. He is hitting just .251, but with 13 doubles, 11 homers, 45 RBI, and a .366 OBP in 71 games. He hit just .181 with 1 homer and 7 RBI in June, so that's why his numbers don't stand out as much as they did earlier in the year. He has still been a very clutch player, despite the recent slump, as he has hit .306 with runners in scoring position and .298 with runners on base at all (he hits .209 with the bases empty). I did a post on Heyward earlier in the year (http://11ornothing.blogspot.com/2010/04/whats-going-on-with-jason-heyward.html), if you want to check that out. Despite the slump and injury, Heyward is certainly a competitor for the NL ROY.
Mike Leake of the Reds skipped the minors and has done well for the Reds so far in '10. He has gone 5-1 with a 3.30 ERA and 62 K's in 15 starts and 95.1 IP. He has posted a sub-par 5.9 K/9, but a decent 3.6 BB/9. Leake has had bad starts (5 or more earned runs) in 3 of his last 4 starts to almost pull himself out of this race. But, if he gets on a roll like he did at the beginning of the year, he will have a shot.
After faltering in an '08 callup, Jaime Garcia of the Cardinals has returned to the majors and excelled. He has gone 7-4 with a 2.27 ERA and 70 K's in 15 starts and 87.1 IP. He has posted a 7.2 K/9 and a 3.8 BB/9, for a 1.89 K/BB ratio. He has also been hard to hit, giving up just 7.5 hits and 0.4 homers per 9 innings. Garcia wasn't very well known before this year, but he really has a shot to win the NL ROY.
Mets 1st basman Ike Davis has been a pretty good hitter so far in '10. He has hit .261 with 14 doubles, 9 homers, 34 RBI, and a .335 OBP in 65 games. He has also been a great defensive 1B. After hitting .324 in April with a homer and 6 RBI (he debuted on April 19th), he hit just .235 in May with 4 homers and 9 RBI. He did rebound with a .264 BA, 4 homers, and 19 RBI in June, but he still is hitting just .261. He is hitting .284 with runners in scoring position. In addition, Davis has been a great defensive 1B. Davis has really cooled off from his hot start. He'll have to get back to that level in the 2nd half of the year to be in NL ROY contention.
At this point, it seems that Stephen Strasburg and Jaime Garcia are the leaders in the NL ROY race. But, all young starters have an innings limit, so that will certainly hurt them. If he can stay healthy, Jason Heyward could sneak up on them and win the award. Of course, it's also possible that one of the other rookies that I may or may not have listed here could get hot in the 2nd half and be the NL ROY. Like everything else in sports, we'll just have to see what happens.
Stephen Strasburg has lived up to all the hype. He is 2-2 with a 2.27 ERA and 48 K's in 5 starts and 31.2 IP. His K/9 ratio is 13.6 and his BB/9 is 2.0, both incredible. His K/BB, is 6.86. In addition, he has given up just 7.1 hits and 0.7 homers per 9 innings. His record is only 2-2 because the Nationals haven't scored any runs for him twice, and they only scored 1 run for him once. On a better team, he could be 4-1 right now. Strasburg has really been incredible so far this year.
Jason Heyward of the Braves has proven to be a good hitter so far this year. He is hitting just .251, but with 13 doubles, 11 homers, 45 RBI, and a .366 OBP in 71 games. He hit just .181 with 1 homer and 7 RBI in June, so that's why his numbers don't stand out as much as they did earlier in the year. He has still been a very clutch player, despite the recent slump, as he has hit .306 with runners in scoring position and .298 with runners on base at all (he hits .209 with the bases empty). I did a post on Heyward earlier in the year (http://11ornothing.blogspot.com/2010/04/whats-going-on-with-jason-heyward.html), if you want to check that out. Despite the slump and injury, Heyward is certainly a competitor for the NL ROY.
Mike Leake of the Reds skipped the minors and has done well for the Reds so far in '10. He has gone 5-1 with a 3.30 ERA and 62 K's in 15 starts and 95.1 IP. He has posted a sub-par 5.9 K/9, but a decent 3.6 BB/9. Leake has had bad starts (5 or more earned runs) in 3 of his last 4 starts to almost pull himself out of this race. But, if he gets on a roll like he did at the beginning of the year, he will have a shot.
After faltering in an '08 callup, Jaime Garcia of the Cardinals has returned to the majors and excelled. He has gone 7-4 with a 2.27 ERA and 70 K's in 15 starts and 87.1 IP. He has posted a 7.2 K/9 and a 3.8 BB/9, for a 1.89 K/BB ratio. He has also been hard to hit, giving up just 7.5 hits and 0.4 homers per 9 innings. Garcia wasn't very well known before this year, but he really has a shot to win the NL ROY.
Mets 1st basman Ike Davis has been a pretty good hitter so far in '10. He has hit .261 with 14 doubles, 9 homers, 34 RBI, and a .335 OBP in 65 games. He has also been a great defensive 1B. After hitting .324 in April with a homer and 6 RBI (he debuted on April 19th), he hit just .235 in May with 4 homers and 9 RBI. He did rebound with a .264 BA, 4 homers, and 19 RBI in June, but he still is hitting just .261. He is hitting .284 with runners in scoring position. In addition, Davis has been a great defensive 1B. Davis has really cooled off from his hot start. He'll have to get back to that level in the 2nd half of the year to be in NL ROY contention.
At this point, it seems that Stephen Strasburg and Jaime Garcia are the leaders in the NL ROY race. But, all young starters have an innings limit, so that will certainly hurt them. If he can stay healthy, Jason Heyward could sneak up on them and win the award. Of course, it's also possible that one of the other rookies that I may or may not have listed here could get hot in the 2nd half and be the NL ROY. Like everything else in sports, we'll just have to see what happens.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
What's the signicance of Bryce Harper being drafted as an OF?
When the Washington Nationals drafted Bryce Harper with the number 1 overall pick in the 2010 MLB draft, the announced him not as "catcher Bryce Harper", but "outfielder Bryce Harper". Why did the Nationals do that and what does it mean for the future?
Harper's future with the Nats is as a RF. Nyjer Morgan is entrenched in CF, and while Willingham could be moveable in LF, he isn't anywhere near as moveable as Roger Bernadina. Not that the Nats could necessarily trade Bernadina for anything, but they could release him or send him down to the minors with no questions asked. If he's lucky, he'll be a bench player. Bernadina is hitting just .255 with 2 homers and 15 RBI, so the Nats' future was looking cloudy in RF. So, the Nats got rid of that problem by making Harper their RF of the future.
But, the Nats have no long-term answer at catcher also! Ivan Rodriguez is going to retire by 2013, and 33 year old Wil Nieves is their backup. Nieves was hitting just .180 entering tonight! The answer to that is Nats' 6th round draft pick, Cole Leonida, a catcher from Georgia Tech. The Nats must have known that they would draft him (or another good catching prospect) later in the draft when they announced Harper as an outfielder. Maybe they think Harper will develop better as a hitter if he doesn't have to focus on being a catcher. Also, like all of you have probably already heard, Harper will make the majors faster as a RF than he would have as a catcher. So, they'll let Leonida, a more experienced catcher, be the potential catcher of the future in order to maximize Harper's ability as a hitter and to get him to the majors more quickly.
Harper's future with the Nats is as a RF. Nyjer Morgan is entrenched in CF, and while Willingham could be moveable in LF, he isn't anywhere near as moveable as Roger Bernadina. Not that the Nats could necessarily trade Bernadina for anything, but they could release him or send him down to the minors with no questions asked. If he's lucky, he'll be a bench player. Bernadina is hitting just .255 with 2 homers and 15 RBI, so the Nats' future was looking cloudy in RF. So, the Nats got rid of that problem by making Harper their RF of the future.
But, the Nats have no long-term answer at catcher also! Ivan Rodriguez is going to retire by 2013, and 33 year old Wil Nieves is their backup. Nieves was hitting just .180 entering tonight! The answer to that is Nats' 6th round draft pick, Cole Leonida, a catcher from Georgia Tech. The Nats must have known that they would draft him (or another good catching prospect) later in the draft when they announced Harper as an outfielder. Maybe they think Harper will develop better as a hitter if he doesn't have to focus on being a catcher. Also, like all of you have probably already heard, Harper will make the majors faster as a RF than he would have as a catcher. So, they'll let Leonida, a more experienced catcher, be the potential catcher of the future in order to maximize Harper's ability as a hitter and to get him to the majors more quickly.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Strasburg dominates in his first MLB start
Strasburg's line pretty much tells it all: 7.0 IP, 4 hits, 2 runs, 0 walks, and 14 strikeouts. Yeah, that's right, 14 strikeouts. 2/3 of his outs in the game were via the strikeout. 0 walks- how incredible is that! 14 strikeouts and 0 walks. That's an infinity K/BB! 14/0! Not to mention that his K/9 after that 1 start is now a ridiculous 18.0. A couple more stats: Strasburg started off with a strike to 16 of 24 batters and had a very good 5-2 ground-ball ratio. Wait a second- only 7 combined ground balls and fly balls in a 7 inning start! Well, when you strike out 14, you can do that. His only mistake was a changeup right over the plate to Delwyn Young which resulted in a 2-run homer. Strasburg got the win with help from homers by Ryan Zimmerman, Adam Dunn, and Josh Willingham. The final score of the game was 5-2.
Just present Strasburg with the NL Rookie of the Year award right now. I'm impressed. I might even have to admit that I was wrong about Strasburg in my recent post about him (Nats prospect Stephen Strasburg makes his MLB debut). He'll be the NL ROY- you can book that.
Just present Strasburg with the NL Rookie of the Year award right now. I'm impressed. I might even have to admit that I was wrong about Strasburg in my recent post about him (Nats prospect Stephen Strasburg makes his MLB debut). He'll be the NL ROY- you can book that.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Nats prospect Stephen Strasburg makes his MLB debut
Stepen Strasburg. The greatest pitchest prospect ever, or so they say. Will he live up to the hype? Well, it all starts tomorrow night in his major league debut.
Strasburg started the 2010 season with the Double-A Harrisburg Senators. He went 3-1 with a 1.64 ERA and 27 K's in 5 starts and 22 IP before being promoted to the Triple-A Syracuse Chiefs. With Syracuse, Strasburg went 4-1 with a 1.08 ERA and 38 K's in 6 starts and 33.1 IP. So, overall this year in the minors, Strasburg went 7-1 with a 1.30 ERA and 65 K's in 11 starts and 55.1 IP. Now let's look at some other stats. Strasburg allowed just 5.0 hits, 0.2 homers and 2.1 walks per 9 innings, while posting a 10.6 K/9. His K/BB ratio was 5.00. His K/H was an incredible 2.1. He was ridiculous in the minors this year.
Will those stats translate to the majors? Well, obviously not quite at his current level, but he definitely has the ability to post great stats in the majors. I hate to do this to Strasburg, but let's compare his minor league stats to Mark Prior's minor league stats. Prior is the most comparable case to Strasburg because he only made 9 starts in the minors before going to the majors as a top pitching prospect. I hope Strasburg doesn't get injured like Prior did.
Strasburg 2010: 7-1, 1.30 ERA, 65 K's, 5.0 H/9, 0.2 HR/9, 2.1 BB/9, 10/6 K/9, 5.00 K/BB, 2.1 K/H in 11 starts and 55.1 IP.
Prior 2002: 5-2, 2.29 ERA, 79 K's, 6.9 H/9, 0.2 HR/9, 3.2 BB/9, 13.9 K/9, 4.39 BB/9, 2.0 K/H in 9 starts and 51 IP.
The difference between Strasburg and Prior is that while Prior was a much better strikeout pitcher than Strasburg (not that Strasburg isn't a great strikeout pitcher), Strasburg is a much better all-around pitcher who is harder to hit and who has better control. Still, Prior is closest comparable player to Strasburg.
Prior's rookie year (2002): 6-6, 3.32 ERA, 147 K's, 7.6 H/9, 1.1 HR/9, 2.9 BB/9, 11.3 K.9, 3.87 K/BB, 1.5 K/H in 19 starts and 116.2 IP.
Prior finished 7th in the NL Rookie of the Year voting in 2002.
Prior 2003: 18-6, 2.43 ERA, 245 K's, 7.8 H/9, 0.6 HR/9, 2.1 BB/9, 10.4 K/9, 4.90 K/BB, 1.3 K/H in 30 starts and 211.1 IP.
Prior finished 3rd in the NL Cy Young award voting in '03.
Will Strasburg follow Prior's numbers and not put up great numbers until his second year? I think yes. Just like Prior, Strasburg will be under so much pressure his rookie year and although he will do well, he won't be the NL Rookie of the Year. Then, when some of the pressure is off of him, Strasburg should be able to put it all together and have a Cy Young-type year.
Strasburg started the 2010 season with the Double-A Harrisburg Senators. He went 3-1 with a 1.64 ERA and 27 K's in 5 starts and 22 IP before being promoted to the Triple-A Syracuse Chiefs. With Syracuse, Strasburg went 4-1 with a 1.08 ERA and 38 K's in 6 starts and 33.1 IP. So, overall this year in the minors, Strasburg went 7-1 with a 1.30 ERA and 65 K's in 11 starts and 55.1 IP. Now let's look at some other stats. Strasburg allowed just 5.0 hits, 0.2 homers and 2.1 walks per 9 innings, while posting a 10.6 K/9. His K/BB ratio was 5.00. His K/H was an incredible 2.1. He was ridiculous in the minors this year.
Will those stats translate to the majors? Well, obviously not quite at his current level, but he definitely has the ability to post great stats in the majors. I hate to do this to Strasburg, but let's compare his minor league stats to Mark Prior's minor league stats. Prior is the most comparable case to Strasburg because he only made 9 starts in the minors before going to the majors as a top pitching prospect. I hope Strasburg doesn't get injured like Prior did.
Strasburg 2010: 7-1, 1.30 ERA, 65 K's, 5.0 H/9, 0.2 HR/9, 2.1 BB/9, 10/6 K/9, 5.00 K/BB, 2.1 K/H in 11 starts and 55.1 IP.
Prior 2002: 5-2, 2.29 ERA, 79 K's, 6.9 H/9, 0.2 HR/9, 3.2 BB/9, 13.9 K/9, 4.39 BB/9, 2.0 K/H in 9 starts and 51 IP.
The difference between Strasburg and Prior is that while Prior was a much better strikeout pitcher than Strasburg (not that Strasburg isn't a great strikeout pitcher), Strasburg is a much better all-around pitcher who is harder to hit and who has better control. Still, Prior is closest comparable player to Strasburg.
Prior's rookie year (2002): 6-6, 3.32 ERA, 147 K's, 7.6 H/9, 1.1 HR/9, 2.9 BB/9, 11.3 K.9, 3.87 K/BB, 1.5 K/H in 19 starts and 116.2 IP.
Prior finished 7th in the NL Rookie of the Year voting in 2002.
Prior 2003: 18-6, 2.43 ERA, 245 K's, 7.8 H/9, 0.6 HR/9, 2.1 BB/9, 10.4 K/9, 4.90 K/BB, 1.3 K/H in 30 starts and 211.1 IP.
Prior finished 3rd in the NL Cy Young award voting in '03.
Will Strasburg follow Prior's numbers and not put up great numbers until his second year? I think yes. Just like Prior, Strasburg will be under so much pressure his rookie year and although he will do well, he won't be the NL Rookie of the Year. Then, when some of the pressure is off of him, Strasburg should be able to put it all together and have a Cy Young-type year.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Is Stephen Strasburg ready for the majors?
Stephen Strasburg came into the 2009 MLB draft as probably the most hyped prospect. He was coming off of a ridiculous junior season as San Diego State, going 13-1 with a 1.32 ERA and 195 K's in 15 starts and 109 IP. He also had 2 complete games, 2 shutouts, an incredible 16.1 K/9, and just a 1.6 BB/9, 5.4 H/9 and 0.3 HR/9. His K/H (used for measuring prospects) was an incredible 1.79. The only downside was 11 wild pitches. He was the 1st overall pick by the Nationals and rightfully so.
There was a question of whether Strasburg would be able to make the Nationals out of 2010 Spring Training. He did very well while he was in major league spring training, as he went 1-0 with a 2.00 ERA and 12 K's in 3 starts and 9 IP. Still, the Nats didn't want to rush him, and they kept him in the minors. So far at Double-A Harrisburg, Strasburg has dominated, going 2-0 with a 0.73 ERA and 17 K's in 3 starts and 12.1 IP. He has an great 12.4 K/9, a good 2.2 BB/9, just a 5.1 H/9, and he hasn't given up a single homer yet, so his HR/9 is 0.0. His K/H is a ridiculous 2.43. He looks ready for the majors.
But, is there room for him? The Nationals are 10-10, so they must have gotten good starting pitching, right? Wrong. John Lannan is 1-1 with a 5.53 ERA, Craig Stammen is 1-0 with a 6.75 ERA, Scott Olsen is 1-1 with a 6.14 ERA, and Jason Marquis is 0-3 with a 20.52 ERA. The one bright spot is Livan Hernandez who's gone 2-1 with a 0.75 ERA. I know it's early in the year, but it sounds like the Nationals need some help at starting pitcher. That's of course where Strasburg comes in. I doubt those 4 Nats starters will do this bad all year, but if it continues into maybe mid-May, the Nats will have to call Strasburg up. Double-A is much different from the majors, so the Nats should probably move Strasburg up to Triple-A for a few starts before he goes to the majors so he gets used to a little bit better competition. Strasburg is ready- he's just going to dominate in the minors until the Nats call him up to the majors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)