Ben and Sam banter about Ben’s new job at The Ringer, a distressing Jose Altuve video, and Clayton Kershaw, then answer listener emails about dugout pranks, contracts and the Hall of Fame, tattoos of players, how to manage managers, and more.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Back in the middle of May, Dave wrote about how the Cardinals were off to something of an unlucky start. Their record hadn’t tanked or anything, but they weren’t winning as often as it looked like they should’ve been. Based on, you know, the various other indicators. The post went how those posts usually go — Dave observed that the Cardinals were missing wins, and then he talked about how that kind of bad luck has proven itself to be unsustainable. In other words, the Cardinals had been unlucky, but the Cardinals shouldn’t have remained unlucky.
Two months have passed, and the Cardinals have remained unlucky. Don’t like the word “luck”? That’s fine. You know what I mean. The Cardinals’ most important number isn’t matching up with all the other numbers. In May, it was something to notice early on. Now the Cardinals are in historic territory. It’s the wrong sort of history, but at least they’re making a statement, I guess.
Matt Kemp took Jeff Samardzija deep on Saturday. In the third inning of a game played at Petco Park, the San Diego Padres outfielder deposited a slider from the San Francisco Giants righty over the left field wall. According to ESPN Home Run Tracker, the blast traveled 398 feet.
As you might expect, Samardzija wasn’t pleased with the pitch. He doesn’t feel the location was terrible, and “Shark” has a solid slider, but he regrets not throwing a sinker. He explained why prior to last night’s game at Fenway Park.
———
Samardzija on facing Matt Kemp on July 16, 2016: “I walked the first two guys in the first inning. Kemp came up, hitting in the three-hole, and I struck him out on five pitches. Four of the five were sinkers in that he mostly swung through. One of them he fouled off and then he struck out swinging.
Drew Pomeranz is in the midst of a breakout season. He’s already surpassed his season high for innings and his ERA is a very low 2.47, while his FIP is a low — if not quite as low — 3.15. Those very good numbers netted the San Diego Padres a very good pitching prospect recently in the form of Anderson Espinoza.
Much of Pomeranz’s newfound success has been attributed to the addition of a cutter to his repertoire, which Jeff Sullivan detailed just before the trade last week. One notes, however, that the success is aided by a .240 BABIP and 80.8% left-on-base rate. Even if those numbers aren’t sustainable, the 3.15 FIP indicates Pomeranz’s success is real. But there’s reason to believe that Pomeranz isn’t as susceptible to regression as the average pitcher. Or there’s reason, at least, to believe that the Red Sox believe he isn’t.
Speaking with WEEI’s John Tomase, former major-league pitcher and current Red Sox assistant pitching coach Brian Bannister has indicated that Pomeranz’s cutter makes it more likely that he’ll sustain some of his batted-ball suppression in Boston.
[Bannister] explained that like knuckleballers, whose BABIP numbers tend to skew low, pitchers who feature cutters tend to outperform league average on balls in play. He knows this because he did it over his first two years in the big leagues, posting BABIPs between .239 and .249.
“I was an example of it,” Bannister said. “[Cutters] generate a different batted-ball profile. There’s just different weak contact in there. Some guys it’s popups. Sometimes you get gyro-spin and it’s almost like a knuckleball. I mean, knuckleballers beat BABIP. It’s not always a given that a full regression is going to occur. When I look at a guy, if there’s a cutter involved or a knuckleball involved, you just can’t say for sure. I know a lot of people look at those two numbers — left on base percentage and the BABIP — and say, ‘Oh, he’s going to get worse in the second half.’ It’s not always a given.”
While we know pitchers tend to gravitate towards league average when it comes to BABIP, some pitchers are better than others at limiting hits on balls in play. Pop ups, like Bannister mentioned, can be a good way to induce easy outs. Fly balls and ground balls have different expected batting averages. Given a large enough sample size, we might be able to deduce which pitchers have these type of skills. With a smaller sample, perhaps looking at pitch types would help us determine which pitchers are likely to produce low BABIPs and thus more likely to outperfrom their fielding-independent numbers.
You’ve seen Daniel Mengden pitch, right? If you haven’t, you have to. First of all, it looks like this.
| 12:03 |
: Alright, two chats left before the trade deadline, so let’s get all rumory up in here. Or you could ask lingering trade value questions. Or anything else, really.
|
| 12:03 |
: What do you think the Reds are able to get out of Jay Bruce?
|
| 12:04 |
: A midlevel guy, not a top 100 type. He’s just not that impactful of a player.
|
| 12:04 |
: How steep a price would Cleveland have to pay for Chapman? Do you see a guy like Aiken or Bobby Bradley being shipped out?
|
| 12:04 |
: Like Chicago, I don’t see them as a great fit for Chapman; Cody Allen is a good closer, and Chapman won’t want to pitch middle innings. They need a good LH guy to work 7-8 innings, so Miller makes a lot more sense. And you’re not getting Miller without giving up Frazier or Zimmer, and even then, might still get outbid.
|
| 12:05 |
: Who’s fixed first: Chris Archer or Drew Smyly?
|
One year ago today, the Texas Rangers were 43-48, in third place in the American League West Division. The first-half bullpen looked terrible. Neftali Feliz started the year as the club’s closer and pitched himself right onto the disabled list and right out of town. Tanner Scheppers imploded. Anthony Bass threw more first-half relief innings than anyone, is maybe all you need to know. As a unit, the Rangers relief corps had a 4.38 ERA, a 4.48 FIP, and were in serious need of a shot in the arm if the club wanted to make a second-half run.
So, general manager Jon Daniels and the Texas front office identified a weakness and acquired right-hander Sam Dyson from Miami and left-hander Jake Diekman from Philadelphia, alongside Cole Hamels. Dyson and Diekman, paired with then-closer Shawn Tolleson and the emerging Keone Kela, formed a quartet that led a remarkable turnaround for the Texas bullpen. In the second half, Rangers relievers went from a 4.38 ERA to a 3.79. From a 4.48 FIP to a 3.98. From a bottom-five unit to a top-five unit. The team went 45-26 the rest of the way to launch themselves into the playoffs, and while the bullpen improvement wasn’t the entire reason why, it was certainly a large component.
Fast-forward to the present. The Rangers are in better standing than they were a year ago! Much better. They’re 55-40, and, according to our playoff odds, they’re looking at a better-than 50% chance to win their division with roughly a 70% chance to make the playoffs, one way or another. But lately, things haven’t been going well, and regarding the root of the struggles, the Rangers are experiencing déjà vu.
Devised originally in response to a challenge issued by sabermetric nobleman Rob Neyer, and expanded at the request of nobody, NERD scores represent an attempt to summarize in one number (and on a scale of 0-10) the likely aesthetic appeal or watchability, for the learned fan, of a player or team or game. Read more about the components of and formulae for NERD scores here.
Most Highly Rated Game
Los Angeles NL at Washington | 19:05 ET
Norris (86.1 IP, 96 xFIP-) vs. Gonzalez (103.1 IP, 96 xFIP-)
Norris has been fantastic over his first three starts for the Dodgers, recording strikeout and walk rates of 27.3% and 4.6%, respectively — the differential of which (22.7 points) would represent the sixth-best mark among baseball’s 96 qualified starters. The relatively quick pace at which they become stable, is why the author cites those metrics as a proxy for Norris’s brief career in Los Angeles. Because he’s a frightened and scurrying creature, is why the author does almost everything else.
Readers’ Preferred Broadcast: Washington Radio.
In his latest trade rumblings column, Ken Rosenthal has a pretty fun story.
Here is an example of a trade that recently was discussed but never got close, and would have amounted to a bombshell if it had come to fruition.
The scenario, according to major-league sources, unfolded like this:
The Cubs tried to acquire left-hander Drew Pomeranz before the Padres sent him to the Red Sox for Class-A right-hander Anderson Espinoza. Simple enough.
The Cubs’ plan, though, wasn’t to keep Pomeranz, who is under club control through 2018. No, the Cubs wanted to spin Pomeranz for a starter who is under even longer team control.
I could not determine the identity of that starter — it was a pitcher whose “name is not out there (publicly), and probably is not going anywhere now,” one source said.
In any case, the Cubs balked at the Padres’ request of infielder Javier Baez for Pomeranz, believing it too high a price. The second part of the deal — the spinning of Pomeranz for the unidentified starter — would not necessarily have worked, either.
This is an intriguing idea for all kinds of reasons. For one, what do the Cubs need with another starting pitcher? Their rotation is already pretty excellent, so making a complicated three-way trade to either acquire a #6 starter or bump Jason Hammel from the rotation while he’s running a 3.34 ERA would be a bit weird. They could use some rotation depth in case of injury, but if you’re acquiring Pomeranz — potentially the most valuable starting pitcher to be moved this month — because you want to flip him for someone even more valuable, that guy has to be pretty good, right? You’re probably not going to pay the price for Pomeranz, only to ship him off for some guy you’d stash in Triple-A, if you’re a win-now contender like the Cubs. At least, I wouldn’t think so.
Of course, it’s not entirely unheard of. The win-now Dodgers inserted themselves into the Todd Frazier trade, getting a package of prospects they liked from Chicago more than the ones they sent to Cincinnati, rather than just keeping Frazier for themselves. Maybe the Cubs knew that some other team hunting for Pomeranz was willing to part with a guy they liked for the future, and they thought this was their best chance to get a young controllable starter from a team that they don’t match up well with in trade. And perhaps they’d think about using that starter as a reliever down the stretch, strengthening a bullpen that could use an upgrade, with the idea of moving him back to the rotation next year.
So, just for the fun of it, let’s try to figure out who this mystery pitcher might be.
Aroldis Chapman closed on Monday, and he threw some pitches incredibly hard. Now, on its own, that’s nothing new. That’s kind of his whole deal. Aroldis Chapman threw baseballs hard. The crow perched in the tree behind me was earlier literally flying in the sky. The world is amazing. But then, Chapman’s pitches were unusually hard, at least. Even by his own insane standards. He was buzzing 105 miles per hour, and other pitchers just don’t do that. Chapman was throwing pitches the likes of which we’ve barely ever seen.
So some attention is warranted. In response to Chapman’s outing, Dave asked how hitters have done and behaved against A++ heat. What’s happened when Chapman has thrown around his own personal maximum? I’ve done research. It’s all spit out for you below.
