Actually, ellipses, I thought jarfmar was you, what with the dissertation post.

Dontrelle had a great '05, but was unspectacular in '06.

 

You guys wanna hear something?

Detroit offered Curtis Granderson and Justin Verlander for Dontrelle after the 2005 season.Is this true or one of those mythical rumors that isn't really true but a lot of people believe it?

I did read an article about it a while back, can't seem to find it now on anywhere but bleacher report. Blah.

Either way ... I don't see why it wouldn't have been true, given Dontrelle's 05 season and Granderson/Verlander being unproven at the time.

Actually, ellipses, I thought jarfmar was you, what with the dissertation post.

Jarmar's post is full of errors. Ellipses makes no mistakes.

Its worth noting that Alvarez in the second half of the season had much better success than in the first half.

Actually, ellipses, I thought jarfmar was you, what with the dissertation post.

I think he meant Mike as in Mike Jacobs

Actually, ellipses

That's ellipsis to you, I ain't plural.

 

The derivation is from a long-defunct board called f**kedcompany.com about 10 years ago where anyone could post as a dot. You can't register a one-character name here, so I went with the minimum required.

Its worth noting that Alvarez in the second half of the season had much better success than in the first half.

I'm not sure this is accurate. His pre all star break numbers are significantly better than his post all star and April was really his best month last year.

Was Jacobs ever a good catcher coming up in the minors? Would he benefit from going back to it?

Was Jacobs ever a good catcher coming up in the minors? Would he benefit from going back to it?

I think he had some sort of arm injury that prevented him from continuing there.

Henderson Alvarez is changing leagues, had an unlucky HR/FB, and if you truly believe in minor league #'s, you'd see that it's likely that he's more of a 15-16 K% pitcher than the worst strikeout rate, 10 K%, pitcher he was last year.

He's a 22-year old pitcher with a career 4.15 xFIP/4.24 SIERA in 251 big league innings, pitching in the AL East in Toronto, a hitter's park. Had he not been rushed to the big leagues by the Blue Jays organization, you're probably excited about such a prospect because his #'s would look better in the minor leagues/he would be a top-100 prospect, much like Eovaldi was before 2012.

 

I think you are overlooking some pretty important peripheral data here. First of all, you seem to refuse to address how hittable Alvarez was this past season. As I stated already, his BABIP was close to "normal" so you can't make the "bad luck" excuse.

In 2012, he had the worst swinging strike rate in major league baseball. He also had the worst contact rate (out of the zone was the worst in MLB, in zone was one of the worst). Scouts have touted his "stuff" in the past, but at least in 2012, the guy was a human pitching machine. That probably has a lot to do with his awful strikeout rate and his abnormal HR/FB rate. I don't think you can really attribute either of those to "luck" or statistical error. The data gives an explanation for those figures, so unless he drastically alters the way he pitches in 2013, you cannot expect much improvement. Stuff like park factor won't influence contact rates and I doubt that pitching in the AL East will sway those numbers that much, either.

 

Defense helps pitchers.

Hechevarria is a big-leaguer for a reason, and it certainly is not his bat. I don't know how good his defense will grade, but there seems to be no reason to believe he won't be a + defender/an upgrade to the years of terrible defense from Hanley & regressing defense from Reyes.

Placido Polanco is a + defender. The Marlins, during Nolasco's time in the big leagues, have historically been terrible defensively at this position, as well, with guys like Hanley and scrubs like Cantu, Dobbs and Helms playing significant innings.

Juan Pierre in LF is a significant upgrade over Morrison because playing a traffic cone in LF would be a significant upgrade over Morrison.

Our Opening Day CF'er is a + defender, regardless of who it is (Ruggiano or Gorkys, likely Ruggiano). Beats the hell out of the Chris Coghlan experiments of the past.

 

We have a + defender at EVERY position this year with the exception of probably Pierre (because of his throwing arm) and Morrison (because nobody really knows, but 1B is his natural position so it shouldn't be terrible; he was a +3 in 155 innings last year).

 

The organization has given these pitchers what they need to succeed, which wasn't really the case for the core of pitchers the past six years or so. The team is good defensively and the new park, itself, seems to be advantageous for pitchers after the year of baseball that was played in it.

 

 

I'm not questioning that the defense has improved quite a bit--although the truly only substantial improvements are coming through the "addition by subtraction" by no longer having Reyes and Hanley in the infield.

 

This is a separate issue, though. I'm saying that the overall talent of the 2013 pitching projects to be lesser than the 2006, defensive independent.

Regarding the pitching staff comparison...

 

Dontrelle Willis being a Cy Young candidate in 2005 is rather irrelevant to me.

 

Wins and ERA aren't indicative of a pitcher's skill and they become absolutely irrelevant when the team behind the pitcher changes completely, as was the case in '06, and is now the case in '13.

 

Thinking Dontrelle Willis was ever truly an ace was rather foolish; heading into the 2006 season, the expectation should have been that he was nothing more than a nice #3. His 2006 ERA was identical to his 2005 SIERA.

 

Dontrelle was never elite/Cy caliber and his one tremendous season mainly occurred because he had a ridiculously fortunate 4.9 HR/FB%.

 

It seems like some people on here still prioritize the usage of ERA as the greatest stat out there for pitchers when it truly is not. At all.

 

What's the point here? I already said in the context of Verlander rumor that it was pretty clear that Willis wasn't going to be an ace over the long term.

 

However, those people who expected the 2006 Marlins to lose 100 games probably weren't basing that upon a Dontrelle Willis regression. That probably had little to do with it.

 

More importantly, though, even though he did regress, he pitched well enough to be a major contributor in elevating that staff to one of the best in the NL in 2006. I still think his 2006 numbers will beat everybody's in the 2013 rotation outside of maybe Turner.

Another fun fact that hasn't been discussed here is that Josh Johnson wasn't even a great prospect, ever. He was a top-80 prospect according to BA prior to '06 as he was really never truly elite in the minors/never truly elite period before Tommy John.

 

Our best pitching prospect heading into the '06 season was actually Scott Olsen and, by all accounts, Jacob Turner is considered to be a better prospect at this time.

 

This is why it's silly to project the progression of young pitchers and deem them to likely be relievers when they're only 22. If there's a difference in talent between the pitching staffs, it truly is not a big deal and it would definitely be negated by the difference in talent in the respective bullpens -- the 2013 version being easily superior in that category, without question.

 

It's also worth noting that Jose Fernandez, if called up, is more talented than any pitcher the Marlins could have promoted that year in '06.

 

The problem with the 2013 team is going to be the offense, or lack thereof.

 

I don't see you cannot make projections on young talent even if they aren't proven to be accurate. Johnson certainly wasn't projected to be an ace before the 2006 season, but he was still more highly regarded than someone like Eovaldi. You can't just throw up your hands and say that you can't project performance just because these guys are young. Alvarez might only be 22, but as I've already shown, his full season in the majors reveals some pretty serious flaws in his game that should definitely question his talent level.

 

In talent of the starting pitchers alone, I think you can expect lower performance than what you saw in 2006. Defense and the bullpen are advantages, but not enough to prevent this from being a 90 loss team.

Henderson Alvarez is changing leagues, had an unlucky HR/FB, and if you truly believe in minor league #'s, you'd see that it's likely that he's more of a 15-16 K% pitcher than the worst strikeout rate, 10 K%, pitcher he was last year.

He's a 22-year old pitcher with a career 4.15 xFIP/4.24 SIERA in 251 big league innings, pitching in the AL East in Toronto, a hitter's park. Had he not been rushed to the big leagues by the Blue Jays organization, you're probably excited about such a prospect because his #'s would look better in the minor leagues/he would be a top-100 prospect, much like Eovaldi was before 2012.

 

I think you are overlooking some pretty important peripheral data here. First of all, you seem to refuse to address how hittable Alvarez was this past season. As I stated already, his BABIP was close to "normal" so you can't make the "bad luck" excuse.

In 2012, he had the worst swinging strike rate in major league baseball. He also had the worst contact rate (out of the zone was the worst in MLB, in zone was one of the worst). Scouts have touted his "stuff" in the past, but at least in 2012, the guy was a human pitching machine. That probably has a lot to do with his awful strikeout rate and his abnormal HR/FB rate. I don't think you can really attribute either of those to "luck" or statistical error. The data gives an explanation for those figures, so unless he drastically alters the way he pitches in 2013, you cannot expect much improvement. Stuff like park factor won't influence contact rates and I doubt that pitching in the AL East will sway those numbers that much, either.

 

 

 

 

.BABIP isn't the only luck stat out there. His .291 .BABIP made sense, especially considering he wasn't really hit hard (~19% LD%).

 

Is there a correlation between the advanced stats you've brought up and HR/FB? I don't think there is. Alvarez had the second worst HR/FB ratio in all of baseball.

 

The #'s you mention are a reason for the lack of strikeouts, yes, but it doesn't really explain why nearly 1/5 of the flyballs he allowed turned into HR's.

 

An 18% HR/FB is not sustainable; a league average # would make his ERA look a lot better and the transition to the NL/Marlins Park, alone, should only help that #.

 

I don't expect him to be anything special in the future, but I also see no reason why he can't become a Jake Westbrook type who's been a serviceable starter in the big leagues for years.

 

And my point about the strikeout rate is that 187 innings is a rather small sample. If you're one to believe in minor league #'s (which you've already said you are), you'd see that while he'll likely never be a strikeout pitcher, his totals have never been as putrid as they were last year. He was called up in 2011 when he threw 64 innings to the tune of a 3.38 xFIP/3.53 ERA and his strikeouts #'s resembled his minor league totals.

 

I don't think it's homerism to project him as a strike-throwing, GB pitcher who's going to K 15-16% of the hitters he faces (better than the terrible 10% # he put up last year) with better HR/FB #'s since HR/FB is not indicative of skill/ability. Is that an ace? No. Is that a serviceable starter under control for years? Probably.

Johnson certainly wasn't projected to be an ace before the 2006 season, but he was still more highly regarded than someone like Eovaldi. You can't just throw up your hands and say that you can't project performance just because these guys are young.

 

Was he, really?

First of all, because of the lack of sophistication in data for LDs and GBs, you cannot conclude from a LD% that he wasn't hit hard. We don't have enough information to tell how well his ground balls were hit (there's also sometimes ambiguity between what's a LD and what's a FB). Considering that his BABIP was sustainable, one can infer that many of those ground balls were well struck.

 

Second, I believe that there is indeed a known correlation between ground ball pitchers--what Alvarez certainly is--and slightly higher HR/FB rates. This is likely a combination of the nature of the contact made (the way those pitches move and where they are located) and the simple fact that they give up far less fly balls than most pitchers. Since the data set is smaller, you are placing much more emphasis on HR/FB than you should be. I don't know why you keep glossing over the H/9 rate which was one of the very worst in baseball.

 

As for minor league numbers, yes, I believe that they tell something, but they need to be used responsibly. However, since Alvarez has only 88 IP above A+ ball, I actually think that the MLB numbers are the more reliable data set. If you are going to nitpick about sampling size, I believe that it is less precise to place more emphasis on his numbers from A+ ball and lower.

Actually, ellipses, I thought jarfmar was you, what with the dissertation post.

Jarmar's post is full of errors. Ellipses makes no mistakes.

Ironically it's jarfmar. I liked the 2006 version of the Marlins. Thought it might be nice to bring back the only affordable player. Guess nobody agrees with my reasoning. No biggie.

You don't have any reasoning to speak of. None.

 

Basically you are just making excuses. It's Fredi Gonzalez's fault. It's Jerry Manuel's fault. It's Ike Davis' fault. It's the fault of steroids testing. It's the DH's fault. It's the American League's fault. It's the fault of everyone and everything that Mike Jacobs sucks except for Mike Jacobs.

 

Either you are trolling or you are a family member/friend of Jacobs.

Wait wait wait. Someone actually wants to bring Mike Jacobs back?

Wait wait wait. Someone actually wants to bring Mike Jacobs back?

 

 

That meme was probably pretty useful during the Louisville game.

Second, I believe that there is indeed a known correlation between ground ball pitchers--what Alvarez certainly is--and slightly higher HR/FB rates. This is likely a combination of the nature of the contact made (the way those pitches move and where they are located) and the simple fact that they give up far less fly balls than most pitchers. Since the data set is smaller, you are placing much more emphasis on HR/FB than you should be. I don't know why you keep glossing over the H/9 rate which was one of the very worst in baseball.

The main reason you don't like him at all right now is because of his terrible ERA last year. His terrible ERA was mostly a result of an abnormally high HR/FB rate.

 

GB pitchers do tend to have slightly higher HR/FB rates, but not 18% abnormally high.

 

I do not bring up H/9 because, again, it's dependent on several things not related to a pitcher's ability. The H/9 thing is because of the horrendous strikeout rate he put up last year, which we've already talked about. The more strikeouts he gets, the less hits he'll likely allow. H/9 is not some sort of advanced stat that we should be paying a lot of attention to.

Shouldn't forget his 2011 partial season was pretty good as well.

Second, I believe that there is indeed a known correlation between ground ball pitchers--what Alvarez certainly is--and slightly higher HR/FB rates. This is likely a combination of the nature of the contact made (the way those pitches move and where they are located) and the simple fact that they give up far less fly balls than most pitchers. Since the data set is smaller, you are placing much more emphasis on HR/FB than you should be. I don't know why you keep glossing over the H/9 rate which was one of the very worst in baseball.

The main reason you don't like him at all right now is because of his terrible ERA last year. His terrible ERA was mostly a result of an abnormally high HR/FB rate.

 

GB pitchers do tend to have slightly higher HR/FB rates, but not 18% abnormally high.

 

I do not bring up H/9 because, again, it's dependent on several things not related to a pitcher's ability. The H/9 thing is because of the horrendous strikeout rate he put up last year, which we've already talked about. The more strikeouts he gets, the less hits he'll likely allow. H/9 is not some sort of advanced stat that we should be paying a lot of attention to.

This is a pretty dumb thing to say considering that I don't recall mentioning ERA at all in the context of Alvarez. Nice try at mind reading, though.

 

Yes, the HR/FB rate is probably higher than it should be, but as I've shown by informing you of the trend with ground ball pitchers, it's probably not as abnormally high as you make it out to be. Also since he allows less fly balls in general, it's not as big of a factor as you seem to think it is.

 

I am concerned with his hittability. Yes, this can be related to factors outside of the pitcher's ability, but as I've already shown, his normal BABIP suggests that these other factors have been severely mitigated. The numbers show that he was for the most part hittable by his own fault. This is why I'm not optimistic about him being more than a back-end starter next season. Obviously the K rate and the hittability are related, but I think it's more productive to recognize the fact that his K rate was bad because of his hittability (swinging strike % helps here). It's very difficult to project any improvement in this area when you factor in the BABIP because it doesn't show "bad luck" to be the main problem. His stuff was flat out hittable. In other words, either he or someone else needs to identify a defect in his mechanics or approach on the mound and correct it.

Johnson certainly wasn't projected to be an ace before the 2006 season, but he was still more highly regarded than someone like Eovaldi. You can't just throw up your hands and say that you can't project performance just because these guys are young.

 

Was he, really?

 

Yeah while I wouldn't say he came out of nowhere, JJ was not regarded as one of the team's top prospects. Although Olsen was supposed to be good so it probably balances out..

Another fun fact that hasn't been discussed here is that Josh Johnson wasn't even a great prospect, ever. He was a top-80 prospect according to BA prior to '06 as he was really never truly elite in the minors/never truly elite period before Tommy John.

John Sickel's on Josh Johnson after the 2004 season: "Josh Johnson suffers from the fact that his name is "Josh Johnson." If he had a more eye-catching name (Lance Powers, or Noble Valentine, or anything more interesting than "Josh Johnson") he'd get more attention."

 

I've always found it to be an interesting point.

Another fun fact that hasn't been discussed here is that Josh Johnson wasn't even a great prospect, ever. He was a top-80 prospect according to BA prior to '06 as he was really never truly elite in the minors/never truly elite period before Tommy John.

 

John Sickel's on Josh Johnson after the 2004 season: "Josh Johnson suffers from the fact that his name is "Josh Johnson." If he had a more eye-catching name (Lance Powers, or Noble Valentine, or anything more interesting than "Josh Johnson") he'd get more attention."

 

I've always found it to be an interesting point.I think that's kind of ridiculous. Dan Cooley Uggla had a strong name and it never got him anywhere until he finally got a real shot. How does your name generate more interest?