FanGraphs Audio is like a bald eagle: less endangered now than it had been till recently.

Episode Four
In which the panel considers the nature of stress… in every way imaginable.

Headlines
Stressed Out Pitchers
FanGraphs Does the (BABIP) Splits
Saying Hello to the Missus
… and other incomparable feats!

Featuring
Dave Allen
Dave Cameron

Finally, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

Audio after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

The first number (ordinal ranking) is where The Book Blog readers ranked the deals. The second number is the percentage of Fangraphs readers who think the player gave the team the best value, and the third number is for the team that signed the worst deal:

Based on 250 Book Blog readers and 3000 Fangraphs readers.

1. 58 – 03 – Figgins

3. 11 – 05 – Polanco
2. 08 – 03 – Byrd

5. 07 – 10 – Lackey
4. 04 – 09 – Wolf

6. 06 – 17 – Holliday
7. 04 – 19 – Bay
8. 01 – 34 – Lyon

I have seen people claim that a pitcher’s ground ball rate is not a useful piece of information because grouping pitchers by it shows no meaningful difference in runs allowed. FIP is comprised of a pitcher’s strikeouts, free passes (walks plus hit batsmen) and home runs. Based on the last few posts the data seems to indicate that strikeouts and free passes are not meaningfully effected by a pitcher’s ground ball rate and home runs decrease. A scatter plot bears out the expected result.

Instead of artificially grouping pitchers, a full trend line points to a pitcher’s ground ball rate being a useful piece of information, even on its own. It is not just FIP though but actual runs scored follows the same trend.

In conclusion from the previous five pieces here is a a list of variables that appear to have no meaningful deviation as a pitcher’s ground ball rate increases:

And here is a run down of what I consider the be the key results found for what does happen as a pitcher’s ground ball rate increases:

I have looked at ground balls and fly balls in isolation and how increasing ground ball rates interact with a pitcher’s home run and slugging percentages. What about plate appearances that do not end with a batted ball? I took a look at strikeouts and walks as well and found them both to decrease in absolute frequency as ground ball rates rose.

That is not unexpected since the more ground balls a pitcher gets, or more fly balls, or anything really, the fewer plate appearances there are available to be ended in a strikeout or a walk. Still, it was worth a look at these absolute frequencies since the raw strikeout and walk totals are the inputs into FIP-based metrics.

I was not satisfied with looking only at those absolute rates however. I wanted a fairer judge of whether gunning for ground balls had a meaningful effect on a pitcher’s ability to get strikeouts or prevent walks. My answer to that was to change the denominator from plate appearances to plate appearances that did not end in a batted ball.

Imagine two pitchers, one a Brandon Webb-esque groundballer, the other a Jered Weaver-type flyballer. Each of these two pitchers have a certain amount of batters faced that end in a strikeout, a walk, a hit batsmen or some other freak occurrence that was not a batted ball. Of those plate appearances, what percentage ended in a strikeout? What percentage ended in a walk?

It turns out to not have a meaningful difference. Fly ball pitchers might get more strikeouts and fewer walks as a percentage, and it might even be statistically significant, but the rate of change here is so small though as to be immaterial. The expected difference between the two biggest reasonable extremes in ground ball rate (30% to 60%) amounts to fewer than five strikeouts or walks over 200 innings pitched.

Given that there appears to be little change in strikeout and walk rates and an obvious decline in home runs as ground ball rates increase, how does a pitcher’s ground ball rate affect overall performance? That’s next.

I’d like to personally thank Russell Branyan for signing with the Indians about an hour after my post speculating on his fit with Tampa Bay was published. Thanks man.

Carlos Pena trade speculation aside, let’s turn our attention to Branyan. He reunites with his original organization after traveling the world, as Cleveland finds a bargain at the end of the winter. He’ll get just $2 million in guaranteed money for 2010, with incentives offering the chance to make another $1 million depending on how much he plays. That’s almost certainly less than he turned down to return to the Mariners at the beginning of free agency, a move that Branyan likely regrets now.

What should the Indians expect from Branyan? Well, besides a lot of strikeouts, he’s actually one of the tougher players in the game to project. In the first half of 2009, Branyan was among the game’s best hitters, posting wOBAs of .444 in April, .430 in May, and .400 in June. However, a huge chunk of that success was built on flukey high BABIPs, as he just strikes out too much to maintain an average close to .300.

Sure enough, his BABIP regressed in July and August, but it didn’t just stop at the mean. It fell to .173 and .255 in the final two months respectively, but a herniated disc in his back makes it a challenge to figure out whether that was bad luck, injury, or a combination of both. He sustained most of his power, even while playing in pain, but it certainly makes sense that a guy with a bad back would be less likely to get hits on balls that don’t leave the yard.

Branyan claims he’s healthy, but he didn’t have surgery this winter, and the Mariners backed away from retaining him after he tweaked his back earlier in the off-season. There are some pretty big red flags here, obviously, but at the price, it seems to be worth the risk for the Indians.

As a 1B/DH (given the back problems, asking him to play anywhere else isn’t a great idea), he’ll likely split time with Matt LaPorta and Travis Hafner, giving the Indians a rotation of three guys to share two spots. Hafner’s no specimen of health himself, so having a guy capable of swatting home runs when he needs a day (or month) off is a good plan.

If Branyan stays healthy, this is certainly a nice move for the Indians, but I’d suggest that its beyond our powers to guess how much he’ll be able to play this year. He’s a cheap lotto ticket, though, and he’s certainly a lot of fun to watch when he’s going well.

(…or maybe Michael Bourn, but let’s not complicate things.)

I remember the first time I seriously paid attention to Nyjer Morgan. I was doing a batting order post on the Pirates. Given the subject matter, I didn’t really deal with defense, but I did notice his (2009) Oliver projection for .308 wOBA — for a left fielder? Ugh. Morgan was soon traded to the Nationals, installed in center field, and not only continued to be a monster defender, but was above average offensively, as well, at +5.2 batting runs, .340 wOBA (.307/.369/.388). Altogether, he was worth almost five wins above replacement… in only 120 games.

That’s a very impressive season from a guy who looked like another “Juan Pierre.” Of course, back in the day, Pierre was a pretty good player, too. 2009 Nyjer Morgan and 2003-04 Juan Pierre both come from the larger class of players that were undervalued prior to the widespread public availability of fielding metrics like Ultimate Zone Rating. No one would have pegged Morgan for a near-five win season going into 2009. But, without saying it is my prediction or projection, I do think that one player who has it within his (non-totally delusional) grasp to have a Nyjer-esque 2010: Yankees outfielder Brett Gardner.

Gardner is currently slated to play left rather than center due to the presence of Curtis Granderson in New York, but, like Dave, I don’t think it makes that big of a difference. In any case, my crude fielding projections for outfielders are expressed in “position neutral” form — so when I say that a player is a +5 outfielder, we apply the positional adjustments (+2.5 for CF, -7.5 for the corners) so say the player would be about +2 CF, +12 on the corners over a full season.

Prior to 2009, I would have projected Morgan as a +7 outfielder, although that would have had a low reliability score because of his relatively low amount of defensive games pre-2009. Gardner so far has more playing time in the outfield than Morgan did pre-2009, and I have him at about +10. Once we take their relative ages into account, Gardner 2010 has more defensive “upside” than Morgan 2009 (the Fans Scouting Report also currently ranks Gardner higher).

The offensive comparison is more interesting. Despite Morgan’s good 2009, CHONE still sees him as a below average hitter (.321 wOBA). Gardner’s CHONE projection is surprisingly good — .335 wOBA. Part of this is Gardner’s relative youth, of course, but their peripherals reveal generally superior skills on Gardner’s part. For example, Gardner has the higher walk rate. This is likely a reflection of Gardner’s superior plate approach. While Morgan swings at bad pitches slightly more often than average, Gardner has been better than average, while still having a slightly higher overall contact rate than Morgan.

While Morgan’s good 2009 relies, as you’d expect, on a high BABIP (.355), Gardner has never really been a high BABIP guy (only .311 during his .337 wOBA 2009). Looking at their batted ball profiles, Morgan again looks like your typical speed merchant, hitting balls on the ground more than 50% of the time, whereas Gardner hits more flyballs. Although, unlike for pitchers, BABIP does reflect a skill for hitters, it varies quite a bit year-to-year, so is regressed fairly heavily. Having said that, given his speed, it might behoove Gardner to hit more balls on the ground (although he is probably best off ignoring me and doing what works for him). The point is that Gardner hasn’t been getting “lucky” with balls in play.

Originally, I wanted to post on just how badly Gardner need to hit to deserve benching in favor of a Randy Winn/Marcus Thames platoon. Given Winn’s offensive decline, Thames non-awesome bat and terrible fielding, and Gardner’s great defense (not to mention his acceptable bat and, contrary to what some might think, non-horrible platoon splits), that seemed pointless. Assuming average offense from Gardner, over ~150 games, he looks like a 2.5-3.0 WAR player in 2009. You can see why the Yanks felt comfortable not going nuts for Johnny Damon, who probably isn’t any better than that.

But Morgan (whom, incidentally, I also see as about 2.5-3 WAR in 2010) is still the more interesting comparison. I wouldn’t have had him as even a 2.5 WAR player before last season, and I doubt many would have. Yet he put up a 4.9 WAR once he got to show what he could do in the field. Should we expect ~5 WAR from Brett Gardner in 2010? No — that would be insane. But if Nyjer Morgan could do it in 2009, Gardner can in 2010. I suppose the Yankees would even settle for Michael Bourn’s “mere” four win 2009.

Everyone’s talking about Adrian Gonzalez as the first baseman that everyone will be chasing this summer, once the Padres finally decide to make him available for bidding. However, with the recent rumblings of the Rays interest in Russell Branyan, I have to think that Carlos Pena is more likely to be the big power hitter getting moved at the deadline.

The Rays are always planning ahead. Branyan is a very similar player to Pena, with all the same strengths and weaknesses (plus one additional weakness – a herniated disc in his back). While he could certainly split time with Pat Burrell at DH, I have to think that the Rays are looking to give themselves the flexibility to move Pena this summer.

If they fall out of the race, it’s a lock he’s getting moved. Headed towards free agency and turning 32 in May, Pena is not the kind of player that Tampa Bay will be paying full market value for. They don’t have the payroll to pay aging sluggers for their decline years.

However, I’d suggest that they may move Pena this summer even if they’re contending, especially if they add Branyan to the fold. If they’re convinced that Branyan is healthy, a platoon with him and Willy Aybar at first base is not a huge step back from what Pena provides. The combination of cost savings and the ability to get value back for him may prove too enticing to pass up, because if they keep Pena until the end of the year, they’re likely to have to let him leave for nothing.

Due to how arbitration and free agency have diverged the last few years, it will be almost impossible for the Rays to offer Pena arbitration, the necessary step to receiving draft pick compensation for a free agent that signs elsewhere. Pena would be able to take his HR and RBI numbers in front of an arbiter and ask for $15 to $20 million, easy. Yet, given how the market has shifted, he won’t be able to come near that AAV as a free agent. The Rays can’t take the risk that he accepts and eats up 30% of their payroll.

So, the Rays face a choice. Deal Pena this summer for value, or let let him leave as a free agent without compensation. As long as he’s still hitting bombs and driving in runs, it’s going to be hard for them to not listen to offers, especially if they have a suitable replacement in house.

If the Rays sign Branyan, I’d suggest it’s the first step towards Pena being traded this summer.

Tangotiger’s poll from insidethebook.com on which 3 year contracts were the best and worst from a team perspective:

Baseball came back to us this week, but it opened in its usual, drab format: with hyperbolic reports on players’ weights, promising a month of statistics that don’t matter. It seems to me this desperation we have for real baseball would be best served with a different focus, if only for the next six weeks: college baseball. I have tried for years to convert casual MLB fans into college baseball observers, with mixed success, but I’m going to keep trying. I know the aluminum bat might be too much for you, and the sloppy play is a put-off, but it’s real, meaningful baseball. Area scouts have been dispatched for college baseball’s first pitch today, and the 2010 draft landscape will appear clearer each week until June. If you’re interested in the draft, and think you can give college baseball a chance, keep an eye on these three match-ups this weekend. You can bet big league scouts are doing the same.

Top Match-Up: Missouri State LHP Aaron Meade vs. Georgia Tech RHP Deck McGuire.

The Missouri State schedule isn’t such that Meade will be overshadowed often this spring, but he certainly will be in his season debut Friday. McGuire looks to be a sure-fire first rounder, and further development of his secondary stuff will put him in the top ten. The rare Georgia Tech pitching star uses his big 6-6 pitcher’s frame to get nice movement on a low-90s fastball, and has three secondary pitches for teams to play with at the next level. He’ll overpower a punchless Bears team whose best hope is for Meade to match McGuire zero-for-zero. The southpaw could be the first player drafted from the Missouri Valley Conference in June, coming into the season with helium following a strong performance in the 2009 Cape Cod League (1.91 ERA, 47 K in 42.1 IP). Meade reminds me a bit of Wade Miley from a couple seasons ago — small-school lefty with low-90s velocity, just average command, but enough strikeouts to really impress scouts. It’s no easy thing to debut with your toughest test, but Meade can do a lot for his draft stock with a big outing against these vaunted Yellow Jackets.

First Honorable Mention: Pepperdine RHP Cole Cook vs. Long Beach State RHP Jake Thompson.

Now this is confusing. Cook, a sophomore, is actually a full year older than Thompson, a junior, and both will be eligible for the draft this June. Thompson, like Robert Stock a year ago, skipped his final year of high school to enroll early in college, so he offers teams three years of college experience at a younger age than any of his peers. He will need to translate his big pitcher’s body and 92-94 mph velocity into strikeouts this season, but the return of LBSU pitching coach Troy Buckley should help in that regard. On the opposite side is Cook, a draft-eligible sophomore because he was redshirted as a freshman in Malibu. He was great as a freshman last year, and at 6-6 with a nasty hook, Cook will have some leverage for good money in the early rounds.

Best Hitter-versus-Pitcher Match-up: Saturday sophomores — Rice 3B Anthony Rendon vs. Stanford LHP Brett Mooneyham.

It’s never too early to start thinking about the 2011 draft, and on Saturday, scouts will see an epic match-up of two projected 2011 first rounders. Rendon is, alongside UCLA ace Gerrit Cole, the favorite to be drafted first, a third baseman that has every tool in the book. The Cardinal pitchers will by and large pitch around the sophomore, but I expect Mooneyham to go right after him in what should be a breakout season for the blue-chip southpaw. Mooneyham throws in the low 90s from a 6-foot-5 left-handed arm slot, and can offer Rendon as many as four different pitches. These are the kind of battles that non-conference college baseball offers, and I guarantee scouts will be recalling this duo’s battles 15 months from now.

Finally, indulge a few college baseball predictions:

Championship: UC Irvine over Texas.
Golden Spikes Award: Danny Hultzen, Virginia.
Other CWS Teams: South Carolina, Virginia, LSU, Rice, Miami, Fullerton.

Although there has been quite a bit of debate with regards to the true replacement level for relief pitchers, we think we’ve got a pretty good idea of it here in our win value calculations. By these calculations, Mike MacDougal has been performing at the replacement level for relievers for the last three years, making it sound exactly right that the Marlins added him on a minor league contract with an invitation to spring training on Thursday.

MacDougal’s career is basically living off a 21-save season in 2005, in which he was quite productive for a reliever. In 70+ innings, MacDougal posted a 3.23 FIP, good for 1.5 WAR. Although still productive in limited action in 2006, it just hasn’t been there in the three years since. An FIP of 4.72 over those three years has squarely placed him in the replacement level category.

His CHONE projected FIP of 4.57 is consistent with this level of performance. It’s very unlikely that MacDougal will ever strike out a batter per inning again, and his walk rates have been dangerously high, eclipsing 6.00 each of the last three years. He will likely continue to post low HR/9 numbers, as his FB rate is insanely low at 23.6% for his career. Still, that’s not enough to outweigh a K/BB of 1.00 or worse, and that’s why MacDougal is such a fringe-type player after a promising start to a career.

Here’s the question: is MacDougal worth a roster spot? He’s projected to be the prototypical replacement player. At 33 years old and with an injury history, however, upside is minimal. How many 24-28 year old minor league players can offer similar production with the opportunity for upside and/or development? Looking at the Marlins’ bullpen situation, MacDougal has a substantial chance at making the team and kicking in the $700,000 guaranteed ML part of his split contract.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that there can’t be similar players at a younger age with fewer injury red flags to be had. There are also players like Mark DiFelice, who had a fantastic year at age 31. His stellar minor league numbers translated to major league success despite questionable stuff.

We see the DiFelices of the league passed over in favor of the MacDougals time and time again. The Marlins’ pickup of MacDougal isn’t necessarily wrong – for some teams, a replacement level player can be an upgrade due to the uneven distribution of talent – but I think this move represents a philosophy we see too much in the major leagues, and that’s an unwillingness to take a chance in the back of the bullpen.