December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. I did, and the ERA came out to 3.8 with Nolasco at 4.50 and Sanchez at 3.65. Our era came out at 3.80. That's in the top 7. That's a good rotation. Above average, imo. It will work with this team. I do want to upgrade over Volstad, but I think we can have a top 10 rotation in baseball, and top 7 in the NL, with him. JJ-2.50 Buehrle-3.50 Sanchez-3.65 Nolasco-4.50 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.83. That's a good rotation.
December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. You're really grasping here. First of all, the difference between a 3.5 ERA and a 3.65 ERA isn't much. Secondly, maybe you're being a bit pessimistic. Anibal Sanchez's K rate was over 9 last year. A dramatic improvement. The only reason why he had a problem in the 2nd half was because he had a terrible stretch in July/August in which he allowed 11 HR's in 60 innings. Anibal Sanchez has never had a problem preventing HR's. There's plenty of reason to think that Anibal Sanchez can be a solid #2 next year. All in all, he's a better pitcher than Mark Buehrle, really. Certainly has more upside.
December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. I did, and the ERA came out to 3.8 with Nolasco at 4.50 and Sanchez at 3.65. Our era came out at 3.80. That's in the top 7. That's a good rotation. Above average, imo. It will work with this team. I do want to upgrade over Volstad, but I think we can have a top 10 rotation in baseball, and top 7 in the NL, with him. JJ-2.50 Buehrle-3.50 Sanchez-3.65 Nolasco-4.50 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.83. That's a good rotation. Why did you lower Johnson's ERA back down to 2.50 (from 2.75)? Also, you are looking at bullpen combined ERA, not rotation ERA. A rotation ERA above 3.80 makes the Marlins 10th of 16 in the NL, which is not an improvement from 2011.
December 11, 201114 yr Nolasco's peripherals suggest he's pitching like a mid-3 ERA guy. Of course, he's rarely ever lived up to that so we shouldn't expect that. However, expecting something in between is fair. A low-4 ERA/200+ inning guy is a fine #4/great #5. It's hard for flyball pitchers to keep the ERA down, especially with the dwindling strikeout rate. Nolasco became more of a groundball pitcher this past year, but got hit around a ton. I don't see a starter here waiting to break out into something better than a mid-4s guy. He just has certain games where it looks like he has no business being in the big leagues for whatever reason. It's a silly excuse, but when you give up 20 ER's in 4.1 innings, that's very extreme and likely to not happen again. I mean, don't you think that's a bit of an anamoly? He had 33 starts last year. Take away 2 starts and he finishes with a 3.88 ERA in 201.2 innings and everyone is loving him this offseason. I hate the "take away the starts where he does poorly" argument. Everything matters. If he gives up 20 ER over two starts, he essentially loses two games single handedly. Sure. But being consistently bad is different from being bad, overall. 2/33 is only ~6% of his season, at the end of the day. 2 losses in a 162 game season is ~1.2% of the season. At the end of the day, if you look at ~94% of Nolasco's season last year, his #'s were just fine. Is it not fair to suggest that 6% of your terribleness is an anamoly when the other 94% was just fine?
December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. I did, and the ERA came out to 3.8 with Nolasco at 4.50 and Sanchez at 3.65. Our era came out at 3.80. That's in the top 7. That's a good rotation. Above average, imo. It will work with this team. I do want to upgrade over Volstad, but I think we can have a top 10 rotation in baseball, and top 7 in the NL, with him. JJ-2.50 Buehrle-3.50 Sanchez-3.65 Nolasco-4.50 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.83. That's a good rotation. Why did you lower Johnson's ERA back down to 2.50 (from 2.75). Also, you are looking at bullpen combined ERA, not rotation ERA. A rotation ERA above 3.80 makes the Marlins 10th of 16 in the NL, which is not an improvement from 2011. Combined ERA is more important than rotation ERA anyway, to be fair.
December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. You're really grasping here. First of all, the difference between a 3.5 ERA and a 3.65 ERA isn't much. Secondly, maybe you're being a bit pessimistic. Anibal Sanchez's K rate was over 9 last year. A dramatic improvement. The only reason why he had a problem in the 2nd half was because he had a terrible stretch in July/August in which he allowed 11 HR's in 60 innings. Anibal Sanchez has never had a problem preventing HR's. There's plenty of reason to think that Anibal Sanchez can be a solid #2 next year. All in all, he's a better pitcher than Mark Buehrle, really. Certainly has more upside. I don't think so. That's still below his three-year average and the Bill James projection has him even higher at 3.75. He's also had problems with home runs in virtually every year since his surgery outside of 2010.
December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. I did, and the ERA came out to 3.8 with Nolasco at 4.50 and Sanchez at 3.65. Our era came out at 3.80. That's in the top 7. That's a good rotation. Above average, imo. It will work with this team. I do want to upgrade over Volstad, but I think we can have a top 10 rotation in baseball, and top 7 in the NL, with him. JJ-2.50 Buehrle-3.50 Sanchez-3.65 Nolasco-4.50 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.83. That's a good rotation. Why did you lower Johnson's ERA back down to 2.50 (from 2.75). Also, you are looking at bullpen combined ERA, not rotation ERA. A rotation ERA above 3.80 makes the Marlins 10th of 16 in the NL, which is not an improvement from 2011. Combined ERA is more important than rotation ERA anyway, to be fair. Not when we are talking about whether or not the rotation needs to be improved.
December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. I did, and the ERA came out to 3.8 with Nolasco at 4.50 and Sanchez at 3.65. Our era came out at 3.80. That's in the top 7. That's a good rotation. Above average, imo. It will work with this team. I do want to upgrade over Volstad, but I think we can have a top 10 rotation in baseball, and top 7 in the NL, with him. JJ-2.50 Buehrle-3.50 Sanchez-3.65 Nolasco-4.50 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.83. That's a good rotation. Why did you lower Johnson's ERA back down to 2.50 (from 2.75). Also, you are looking at bullpen combined ERA, not rotation ERA. A rotation ERA above 3.80 makes the Marlins 10th of 16 in the NL, which is not an improvement from 2011. Just trying to balance things out. No, I'm not. The Nationals are 7th out of 16th in the NL last season, with a 3.80 ERA.
December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. I did, and the ERA came out to 3.8 with Nolasco at 4.50 and Sanchez at 3.65. Our era came out at 3.80. That's in the top 7. That's a good rotation. Above average, imo. It will work with this team. I do want to upgrade over Volstad, but I think we can have a top 10 rotation in baseball, and top 7 in the NL, with him. JJ-2.50 Buehrle-3.50 Sanchez-3.65 Nolasco-4.50 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.83. That's a good rotation. Why did you lower Johnson's ERA back down to 2.50 (from 2.75). Also, you are looking at bullpen combined ERA, not rotation ERA. A rotation ERA above 3.80 makes the Marlins 10th of 16 in the NL, which is not an improvement from 2011. Just trying to balance things out. No, I'm not. The Nationals are 7th out of 16th in the NL last season, with a 3.80 ERA. The Nationals had a 3.58 team ERA last year which was 6th of 16. Also the Marlins 3.95 team ERA was the best since their 1997 WS year.
December 11, 201114 yr Ok, I think I'm getting my numbers wrong here then. Where did you get that from?
December 11, 201114 yr JJ-2.75 Sanchez-3.50 Buehrle-3.50 Nolasco-4.25 Volstad-5 Comes out to 3.8. Nolasco should be around a 4.50.and Anibal around a 3.65. Those are more reasonable and conservative estimates of what to expect from them. And compare the rotation to the rest of the NL. In 2011, the top nine teams in the NL were within 3.80. The number 10 team was the Marlins. If the Marlins project to be the 10th best rotation, they aren't really improving with respect to the rest of the league. You're really grasping here. First of all, the difference between a 3.5 ERA and a 3.65 ERA isn't much. Secondly, maybe you're being a bit pessimistic. Anibal Sanchez's K rate was over 9 last year. A dramatic improvement. The only reason why he had a problem in the 2nd half was because he had a terrible stretch in July/August in which he allowed 11 HR's in 60 innings. Anibal Sanchez has never had a problem preventing HR's. There's plenty of reason to think that Anibal Sanchez can be a solid #2 next year. All in all, he's a better pitcher than Mark Buehrle, really. Certainly has more upside. I don't think so. That's still below his three-year average and the Bill James projection has him even higher at 3.75. He's also had problems with home runs in virtually every year since his surgery outside of 2010. That's basically the only other year he's been completely healthy since the surgery. He clearly wasn't healthy in 2008 when he only threw 51.2 innings and couldn't find the strike zone nor was he the same guy in '09 when he had the same problems and only threw 86 innings. In 2010, he started pitching more like himself pre-surgery and then last year he kinda exploded with the strikeout rate indicating that he might just be living up to expectations, considering he was once a top prospect. It's extremely silly to use Bill James projections with Anibal Sanchez and then totally ignore the fact that Bill James also thinks that Ricky Nolasco will have 3.94 ERA next year, as well. If you're going to use Bill James projections for your argument, use it both ways.
December 11, 201114 yr Ok, I think I'm getting my numbers wrong here then. Where did you get that from? MLB.com but actually I think your numbers are for the starters not the team ERA so they look about right. Checking fangraphs the starters for the Nationals posted a 3.80 ERA and the Marlins posted a 4.23 ERA, most likely higher due to AAA call ups.
December 11, 201114 yr So then why is 2010 the more accurate home run rate for Anibal? Why isn't that the exception to the rule, but 2011 is? Why did he increase his strikeout rate and yet failed to suppress home runs? I hadn't looked up Nolasco's projection. I'd say use them all and compare that to projections for the rest of the NL teams. I'd expect to see an estimate outside of the top 8.
December 11, 201114 yr So then why is 2010 the more accurate home run rate for Anibal? Why isn't that the exception to the rule, but 2011 is? Why did he increase his strikeout rate and yet failed to suppress home runs? I hadn't looked up Nolasco's projection. I'd say use them all and compare that to projections for the rest of the NL teams. I'd expect to see an estimate outside of the top 8. Bill James's predictions puts us at 3.79 ERA. At the end of the day, this is a good rotation.
December 11, 201114 yr So then why is 2010 the more accurate home run rate for Anibal? Why isn't that the exception to the rule, but 2011 is? Why did he increase his strikeout rate and yet failed to suppress home runs? I hadn't looked up Nolasco's projection. I'd say use them all and compare that to projections for the rest of the NL teams. I'd expect to see an estimate outside of the top 8. In the context of 2012, 2010-11 should be more relevant than 08-09 especially considering the amount of innings he threw those years combined. 08 and 09, he was coming back from a torn labrum. You can use that for your argument if you'd like but I don't see why you would since he's been an entirely different pitcher since then. If you track his pitches/velocity on a per year basis, you'd see that he's gotten stronger every year since coming back from surgery. He's just a better pitcher now.
December 11, 201114 yr So then why is 2010 the more accurate home run rate for Anibal? Why isn't that the exception to the rule, but 2011 is? Why did he increase his strikeout rate and yet failed to suppress home runs? I hadn't looked up Nolasco's projection. I'd say use them all and compare that to projections for the rest of the NL teams. I'd expect to see an estimate outside of the top 8. In the context of 2012, 2010-11 should be more relevant than 08-09 especially considering the amount of innings he threw those years combined. 08 and 09, he was coming back from a torn labrum. You can use that for your argument if you'd like but I don't see why you would since he's been an entirely different pitcher since then. If you track his pitches/velocity on a per year basis, you'd see that he's gotten stronger every year since coming back from surgery. He's just a better pitcher now. I'm not disagreeing about 08/09. I don't see why you are projecting his HR/9 rate based on 2010 rather than 2011.
December 11, 201114 yr So then why is 2010 the more accurate home run rate for Anibal? Why isn't that the exception to the rule, but 2011 is? Why did he increase his strikeout rate and yet failed to suppress home runs? I hadn't looked up Nolasco's projection. I'd say use them all and compare that to projections for the rest of the NL teams. I'd expect to see an estimate outside of the top 8. Bill James's predictions puts us at 3.79 ERA. At the end of the day, this is a good rotation. Bill James projections kinda suck. I wouldn't be surprised if that's where we end up as a whole, but his projections for individuals don't mean much to me. Guys like Ricky Nolasco will be around guys like Buehrle because Nolasco's peripherals are stronger than Buehrle's. Nolasco always underachieves, and Buehrle usually overachieves them. It's probably silly, at this point, to say that Nolasco will finish with a 3.94 ERA and have Buehrle projected for a 3.98 ERA (especially with the move over to the NL). I wouldn't put much into them (although, as I said, we'll probably finish around that rotation ERA as a whole because he has Nolasco with an ERA under 4 and Volstad finishing at 4.34).
December 11, 201114 yr So then why is 2010 the more accurate home run rate for Anibal? Why isn't that the exception to the rule, but 2011 is? Why did he increase his strikeout rate and yet failed to suppress home runs? I hadn't looked up Nolasco's projection. I'd say use them all and compare that to projections for the rest of the NL teams. I'd expect to see an estimate outside of the top 8. Bill James's predictions puts us at 3.79 ERA. At the end of the day, this is a good rotation. Bill James projections kinda suck. I wouldn't be surprised if that's where we end up as a whole, but his projections for individuals don't mean much to me. Guys like Ricky Nolasco will be around guys like Buehrle because Nolasco's peripherals are stronger than Buehrle's. Nolasco always underachieves, and Buehrle usually overachieves them. It's probably silly, at this point, to say that Nolasco will finish with a 3.94 ERA and have Buehrle projected for a 3.98 ERA (especially with the move over to the NL). I wouldn't put much into them (although, as I said, we'll probably finish around that rotation ERA as a whole because he has Nolasco with an ERA under 4 and Volstad finishing at 4.34). Looking at them now I think he's way off on every one. He either oversells or undersells every player. He undersells Buehrle by probably not taking the league change in mind (and does not expect him to pitch 200 innings), but he's probably too generous with Nolasco and Volstad.
December 11, 201114 yr I agree. I think we finish with an ERA around 3.75-3.8, which is above average. If we can land someone to replace Volstad, and make Nolasco our number 5, we'll have a very nice rotation. Not Phillies/Rays nice, but a good one none the less.
December 11, 201114 yr So then why is 2010 the more accurate home run rate for Anibal? Why isn't that the exception to the rule, but 2011 is? Why did he increase his strikeout rate and yet failed to suppress home runs? I hadn't looked up Nolasco's projection. I'd say use them all and compare that to projections for the rest of the NL teams. I'd expect to see an estimate outside of the top 8. In the context of 2012, 2010-11 should be more relevant than 08-09 especially considering the amount of innings he threw those years combined. 08 and 09, he was coming back from a torn labrum. You can use that for your argument if you'd like but I don't see why you would since he's been an entirely different pitcher since then. If you track his pitches/velocity on a per year basis, you'd see that he's gotten stronger every year since coming back from surgery. He's just a better pitcher now. I'm not disagreeing about 08/09. I don't see why you are projecting his HR/9 rate based on 2010 rather than 2011. Because while I thought he was a bit lucky with the HR/FB in 2010, he's definitely not 11 HR's in 2 months bad. Maybe it's a bit optimistic, but his rise in K/9 is an indication he's getting back to what he used to be back in Boston's system, as a top prospect. He never had HR/9 issues at any level in the minor leagues. I fully expect his HR/9 to settle in the .7-.8 HR/9 range, which will improve his ERA. Our new ballpark will also probably play like a pitcher's ballpark, which certainly shouldn't hurt the cause.
December 11, 201114 yr That doesn't really make much of a case for an ERA around 3.50 for Anibal, since he was giving him home runs at a sizable clip despite the increasing K rate. I am entering 2012 expecting the 2-5 guys to basically replicate their 2011 numbers. I think that is a pretty conservative and reasonable approach. For Johnson, I am assuming numbers a tad worse than they were in 2010 (say in the range of high 2s). Based on that, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the Marlins need an additional starter to compete in this league. Keeping Nolasco will be fine, but they need to replace Volstad.
December 11, 201114 yr That doesn't really make much of a case for an ERA around 3.50 for Anibal, since he was giving him home runs at a sizable clip despite the increasing K rate. I am entering 2012 expecting the 2-5 guys to basically replicate their 2011 numbers. I think that is a pretty conservative and reasonable approach. For Johnson, I am assuming numbers a tad worse than they were in 2010 (say in the range of high 2s). Based on that, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the Marlins need an additional starter to compete in this league. Keeping Nolasco will be fine, but they need to replace Volstad. I agree. I'm hoping for Oswalt. I don't know how he checks out medically, though.
December 11, 201114 yr That doesn't really make much of a case for an ERA around 3.50 for Anibal, since he was giving him home runs at a sizable clip despite the increasing K rate. I am entering 2012 expecting the 2-5 guys to basically replicate their 2011 numbers. I think that is a pretty conservative and reasonable approach. For Johnson, I am assuming numbers a tad worse than they were in 2010 (say in the range of high 2s). Based on that, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the Marlins need an additional starter to compete in this league. Keeping Nolasco will be fine, but they need to replace Volstad. That's certainly fair, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying there are several reasons to believe in Anibal Sanchez' upside. I'm also trying to prove that Nolasco is not Nate Robertson, which some people are making him out to be this offseason. As I said, if you take away 6% of his work last season, everyone is feeling fine and dandy with him this offseason. Instead, mostly everyone (not you) wants him out of here.
December 11, 201114 yr ok so i'm throwing a name out and i'm not sure if its possible or if we have the pieces but what do you think it would take for us to get felix hernandez? seattle is going to be in rebuilding mode for the next couple of seasons and they've developed their new ace in pineda so it might be time for them to trade in felix for pieces that fill other needs. once again i'm just throwing a name out to see what it would take to get him, dont attack me
December 11, 201114 yr I also don't see how he can say if everything goes well, it's an average rotation. If everything goes well, we'll have a great rotation. so far ricky nolasco has not proven that he can shake the inconsistency nor that he can repeat his 2008 season which is his only season below a 4.50 ERA. Volstad has not come anywhere close to his 2008 numbers as well. after he finally improved at the end of 2010 we thought he may have turned the corner but he proved that he very much had not. again last year he had the same solid finish but im not buying it again. there is no reason to believe that everything will go well because it never really has gone well. if im the marlins, though he is overpaid, im making ricky nolasco my #5 at best and looking for a proven #2 or #3. Volstad did not really improve at the end of 2010. His 8-1 record was lucky because of run support. His last 10 starts or so this year were very good, 3.64 ERA and he did improve his peripherals. His 0-5 record was because of terrible run support. Now he's 25 and if he's learned he could be a great #5 and surprise all you Voly haters. Is Nolasco worth 9 MM?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.