Yankees’ Postseason Fate Closely Tied To A.J. Burnett’s Performance

Over the last year or so, I’ve realized that my ardent commitment to statistical analysis in sports has come at the cost of my youthful fandom. I remain a dedicated supporter of my teams, but some of the unadulterated enthusiasm has faded away. For example, when Robinson Cano rips a double on the first pitch of an at-bat, I can’t help but shake my head at his impatience instead of applauding his play. When Joba Chamberlain pitches a good game, I’m not only happy because he’s given the Yankees a quality performance, but also because this means I’m one small step closer to being right about his proper role in the major leagues. In short, I’m rooting more for me to be right than for the athletic displays themselves. It’s a bit of a somber realization, but I’ve come to accept its permanence.

Until recently, this change had all but done away with age-old question “who’s your favorite baseball player?” Ten years ago, I would have said Derek Jeter. Five years ago, it would have been Gary Sheffield. If you asked me in the last year, I would have blinked at you quizzically and named the Yankee with the highest WARP, because he would have contributed the most to my favorite team. But now, strangely enough, I have an answer to that question, and it’s largely without a statistical bent. A.J. Burnett is my favorite baseball player and he is, to my great trepidation, the key to the Yankees’ postseason chances.

A Rough Look At The American League’s Superiority

For a few years now, I’ve fully embraced the idea that the American League features a higher level of play than the National League. To be honest, I don’t even think it’s particularly close. This sort of snobbery often comes out in baseball debates with friends, in which I routinely refuse to consider any NL team or pitcher the best in the game (Albert Pujols’ existence means NL hitters get a pass). It’s obnoxious, I know.

I have neither the time nor the patience to pore through recent baseball history and quantify the difference between the leagues. I can, however, offer a very rough look at this disparity because several starting pitchers have switched leagues this season. Brad Penny, John Smoltz, Jose Contreras, Cliff Lee, and Vicente Padilla began the season in the AL and are currently in the NL. The reverse is true of Chad Gaudin and Ian Snell. Here are their numbers in the AL:

• AL: 597 IP, 4.92 ERA, 1.53 WHIP, 6.4 K/9, 3.77 BB/9, 1.2 HR/9

And in the NL:

• NL: 274 IP, 4.32 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 7.37 K/9, 2.34 BB/9, 0.58 HR/9

It’s a small sample, to be sure, and anyone with the requisite interest and time could resolve this issue. But at least for this season, there appears to be little argument about which league has the superior pitching (and hitting). Which means that the next person who tells me Tim Lincecum is better than Zack Greinke is getting a dirty look.

Mariano Rivera’s Cy Young Candidacy Relies On The Overvaluing Of Closers

A little over a week ago, I offered my opinion about who should win the American League’s Most Valuable Player award. In a roundabout sort of way, and after wondering why Kevin Youkilis hasn’t garnered more support, I said it’s clear that Minnesota’s Joe Mauer is most deserving of the honor. In fact, this is the rare race in which there is an unquestionably right answer; Mauer is the league’s most valuable player, and if you think otherwise, you are wrong. Baseball Prospectus’ Joe Sheehan agrees with me, even if he is more optimistic than I am about the voters ultimately choosing Mauer. In any case, I no longer feel compelled to participate in this particular debate (unless he doesn’t win, in which case you will most certainly be hearing from me).

I hadn’t thought much about the American League Cy Young award race until last night. I was watching the MLB Network when former player-turned-analyst Dan Plesac said something very closely resembling the following:

“I’ll tell you what, Mariano Rivera should be in the thick of the Cy Young discussion. He’s simply the best ever at his position and he’s having another great season. To have a guy that can come in and get the twenty-sixth, twenty-sev… uh, the last few outs of the game every time, that’s a huge advantage for a team. I know there’s the Rolaids award for relief pitchers, but he should be in the Cy Young discussion.”

After chuckling at Plesac’s struggle to remember the number of outs typically required for a baseball game to end, I paused to consider his opinion. Then I rejected it.

As I’ve mentioned several times, 70 innings of brilliant pitching are not as valuable to a team as 200 innings of excellent pitching. One time, I was condescendingly instructed “not to think of it as innings pitched, but as appearances, as the number of games a player can affect” (had this person written his suggestion, I’m positive he would have written “effect”). This is also wrong. A team must throw a minimum of 1,458 innings to make it through a baseball season. You can divide the pitchers up into however many appearances you’d like, but the minimum number of innings is static. Wouldn’t you rather have 15% of those innings soaked up by an excellent pitcher, instead of 5% by a brilliant one? Especially when that 5% is often against the bad part of a lineup with a three-run lead? This is why I disregard relief pitchers as Cy Young candidates. Unless the reliever throws 100 brilliant, high-stakes innings (no, the 9th inning does not automatically qualify), he’s not qualified to win the award.

Mariano Rivera’s proposed candidacy gets even more dubious when you look at the numbers themselves. Look at Rivera’s key statistics compared to the two most qualified Cy Young award candidates, Zach Greinke and Felix Hernandez:

• Rivera: 53 IP, 1.87 ERA, 1.0 HR/9, 1.5 BB/9, 10.0 K/9
• Greinke: 173.1 IP, 2.44 ERA, 0.5 HR/9, 2.0 BB/9, 9.5 K/9
• Hernandez: 178.1 IP, 2.73 ERA, 0.7 HR/9, 2.7 BB/9, 8.7 K/9

Greinke and Hernandez (the former in particular) have performed about as well as Rivera, but in three times as many innings pitched. That has much greater value to a team than Rivera’s small but brilliant contribution.

I think there’s no chance of Rivera actually winning the award, so I’m not as worked up about this as Mauer’s candidacy. But I think Plesac’s misguided opinion of closers’ contributions to a team is fairly common and needed rebutting. A good starter is more valuable than a great closer, period. Assuming Mauer wins the AL MVP award, I hope that this realization is the next frontier in Cy Young voting.

I Repeat: A “Five-To-Six Inning Pitcher” Is Not A Bad Thing

Consider this post my informal proposal to retire the phrase “he’s a five-to-six inning pitcher.” This phrase – used with some regularity in baseball circles – always has a respectfully negative connotation to it. It’s intended to say tactfully “he’s not very good, but he’ll take his lumps and get you through nearly two-thirds of the game.” Most recently, ESPN’s Buster Olney used it to describe the Phillies’ Jamie Moyer:

With Moyer essentially a five-to-six inning pitcher these days, the last thing that the Phillies need is to acquire another starter who would consistently leave 9 to 15 outs on the table for the bullpen. 

Olney and every other baseball writer continually neglects the fact that the average starting pitcher in the major leagues is “a five-to-six inning pitcher.” Look at the average length of a pitcher’s start since 2000:

• 2009: 5.80 IP
• 2008: 5.80 IP
• 2007: 5.79 IP
• 2006: 5.82 IP
• 2005: 5.99 IP
• 2004: 5.85 IP
• 2003: 5.86 IP
• 2002: 5.85 IP
• 2001: 5.91 IP
• 2000: 5.91 IP

As you can see, a phrase that is meant to criticize politely actually describes an average performance. Furthermore, there are many, many teams in Major League Baseball that would love to have someone who is “essentially a five-to-six inning pitcher.” There’s good value in average starting pitching, believe it or not. Since average starting pitching is somewhere between five and six innings per start, I propose that we banish the critical usage of “five-to-six inning pitcher.” Such criticism would be valid in, say, 1954; pitchers threw 463 complete games that year. But in the modern game, this qualifier adds nothing.

What Exactly Has To Happen For People To Accept Joba Chamberlain As A Starter?

This is, I believe, the first time I’ve talked about Joba Chamberlain with respect to his role on the Yankees’ pitching staff. As you undoubtedly know, much has been said about Chamberlain’s optimal usage on a baseball team. Many people – and sometimes it sure seems like most people – believe that Chamberlain should be a reliever. This is because he made his major league debut in this role and performed exceptionally well. Others believe that he should be a starter. After all, he was a starter both in college and in the minor leagues before changing roles to fit an immediate need in the Yankees’ bullpen. I’m firmly in the latter camp, but I’ve refrained from publicly taking a side on this issue because, quite honestly, I didn’t even want to dignify the opposing argument with a response. Unfortunately, it’s gotten to the point where I must make a few things very clear. 

Joba Chamberlain was a starter in college, and was drafted to fill the same role in the major leagues. In 2005, he started 18 games and threw 118 innings for the Nebraska Cornhuskers. He struck out 130 batters, walked 33, and allowed only seven home runs. The result was an ERA of 2.81. In 2006, he started 14 games and threw 89 innings. He struck out 102 batters, walked 34, and allowed eight homers. His ERA was 3.93. After being drafted by the Yankees, Chamberlain started 15 games and threw 88 innings in the minor leagues. He struck out 135 batters, walked 27, and allowed four homers. His ERA was 2.45. He’s thrown 100 innings as a starter in the major leagues. He’s struck out 108 batters, walked 42, and allowed eight homers. His major league ERA in this role is 3.15. These numbers indicate two things: Chamberlain has been conditioned to be a starting pitcher, and he’s been very good at actually doing it. If one of those statements were false, then perhaps there would be an argument for him becoming a full-time reliever. But neither is false. 

At first, the Chamberlain-to-the-bullpen argument centered around his electric performance as a reliever in 2007. Reporters, analysts, and fans alike recognized Chamberlain’s single-inning dominance and saw no way he could sustain it over the course of a five, six, or seven inning start. This was, of course, true. Two hundred innings of sub-2.00 ERA pitching just doesn’t happen. But rather than see what Chamberlain could do as a starter, seemingly everyone was content to just leave him in the bullpen and have him pitch 80 innings a season instead of 200. At the time, I could sort of, kind of, maybe accept him being a reliever, but only if he failed as a starter. It seemed like a fair assessment to me.

Well, Chamberlain has not failed as a starter. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And yet there is still an insatiable clamor to put him in the bullpen. When asked about Chamberlain in today’s chat, ESPN’s Jayson Stark said the following about why he should be a reliever:

Two reasons: For one thing, I think his ERA alone is misleading because he really hasn’t gotten deep enough in games to make a significant enough impact for me. He’s made it beyond six innings once this year. So he’s causing the bullpen to get a ton of outs every time he pitches. The other reason is, I see him as the obvious heir to Mariano. He has the stuff. He has the temperament. He has the love for that big moment. Those are invaluable qualities in the town he pitches in. 

I can’t wrap my head around this. Initially, Chamberlain becoming a starter was a bad idea because there was no way he could be good enough to justify his removal from the bullpen. Now, after 100 innings of 3.15 ERA ball, his ERA is “misleading”? I think his ERA is more “good” than “misleading.” Also, there’s a reason Chamberlain hasn’t gotten deep into games. It’s because he spent time pitching out of the bullpen, thereby sidetracking his development as a starter. It’s unfair for Stark to insist Chamberlain be a reliever and then qualify his success as a starter by saying “he really hasn’t gotten deep enough in games.” I also object to the notion that Chamberlain hasn’t given the Yankees enough innings in his starts. On average, starting pitchers have thrown 5.82 innings per start this season. Chamberlain has thrown 5.72 innings per start. For a 23-year-old pitcher that’s still refining his skills, that’s absolutely acceptable. The “not going deep enough into games” argument is garbage. It’s a cop out that reveals stubbornness more than useful insight. 

I don’t know if Joba Chamberlain will become a good starter. He’s thrown 100 innings in that role, which is nowhere near enough to draw any firm conclusions. It is, however, enough information to decide whether or not to abandon the idea. An ERA of 3.15 and 108 strikeouts in 100 innings is enough to convince any rational and impartial person that Chamberlain should continue as a starter until he proves he can’t do it.

Wins : Useless :: Tweenbots : Cute

I would just like to issue your semi-regular reminder that pitching wins are a useless statistic. Baltimore Orioles pitcher Koji Uehara proved this once again tonight, by putting together the following line and still getting a win:

• 5 IP, 7 H, 7 ER, 4 BB, 3 K, 2 HR

So remember, if you are having a baseball discussion with someone, and that person cites wins as evidence for a pitcher’s success or failure, tune him or her out. 

On a significantly less cranky note, you absolutely need to familiarize yourself with Tweenbots and then watch the embedded video. Stuff like this (and Legos!) further reinforce my opinion that New York is the most vibrant, interesting, and imaginative city in the world. Enjoy.

The Yankees Had A Better Winter Than The Red Sox

In recent months, I’ve taken a much more even-tempered approach to the decaying state of sports analysis. My blood pressure is very thankful for this adjustment. I smile more. I curse less. People seem to like me more, and I can still uphold Fan Interference’s fundamental goal of pointing out shoddy, lazy, or factually incorrect analysis in an effort to better educate you, the avid sports fan. That hasn’t changed, but the tone has. 

I mention this because this post will be decidedly in the “old style” tone. Jayson Stark’s recent column comparing the Yankees’ and Red Sox’ off-seasons has served as the impetus for this brief regression. The column heavily implies – if not outright asserts – that the Red Sox’ player additions are better than the Yankees’, despite the latter’s prodigious spending. It’s essentially yet another David versus Goliath analogy that, of course, sides with David (even though David is a Goliath too). To be clear, I’m not arguing that the Yankees are better than the Red Sox. I’m arguing that it’s lunacy to suggest that a team improves more by adding the current versions of John Smoltz, Brad Penny, Takashi Saito, and Rocco Baldelli than adding CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, and AJ Burnett. I am putting my fan hat back on for this post, because quite honestly, Stark’s piece got my blood boiling again. Articles like this are the reason we started this blog in the first place.

Here we go, Fire Joe Morgan-style:

“Six-Inning Pitchers” Provide Value

I generally like ESPN’s Buster Olney. It’s a peculiar affection, because his baseball analysis is often traditional, based on intangibles, and occasionally wildly inaccurate. In many ways, he is the anti-Kevin, for I am always accurate. But he always appears to be affable, accessible, open-minded, and genuinely excited about baseball. Also, he is a fellow Commodore.

So, it is with a heavy heart that I find myself posting about his recent analytical shortcoming. In today’s chat on ESPN.com, Olney took a question about the Yankees possibly trading for Padres’ pitcher Jake Peavy. His response:

“Jim: I don’t think the Yankees or Red sox necessarily look at Peavy as being a slam-dunk performer in the AL East. He tends to throw a lot of pitches, even while playing in a relatively weak division, and if you put him in the AL East with that style, he might turn into a six-inning pitcher.”

Olney’s general synopsis is well-founded. Most reasonable baseball minds would be wary of Peavy’s transition from the atrocious NL West to the loaded AL East. This is acceptable analysis. My only issue is with the cautionary “he might turn into a six-inning pitcher.”

In his career, Jake Peavy has thrown 1,261 innings in 199 starts. That comes out to 6.33 IP/GS. Olney’s diagnosis is already in trouble, because Peavy already averages about six innings per start. Olney seems to imply that this is a bad thing, but we cannot tell if it is without more context.

There were 4,856 games started last year in Major League Baseball. Starting pitchers threw 28,191.6 innings in these starts. This means that MLB starting pitchers averaged 5.8 IP/GS in the 2008 season. So, 6 IP/GS is above-average, which goes against Olney’s implication.

Finally, we should look at the IP/GS in the AL East. In 2008, there were 809 games started (Baltimore played only 161 games). In these games, starting pitchers threw 4,741 innings – good for 5.86 IP/GS. 6 IP/GS is above-average in the AL East too.

I understand and agree with Olney’s general assessment that Peavy would throw fewer innings in the AL East. But it is important to note that Peavy is already a “six-inning pitcher,” which is also already above-average. Even if he did come to the AL East and average six innings per start, that would be an improvement over what the average AL East starting pitcher provides. The days of pitchers regularly throwing complete games have passed. Six innings per start is now a luxury that most teams cannot afford (or have not afforded themselves).

We Commodores try to have each other’s back, that’s all.

Tim Kurkjian Can’t Think For Himself

It seems appropriate that for my inaugural post, I am going to pick on the Red Sox. Even though I’m really picking on Tim Kurkjian for some pretty hazy analysis. The only thing keeping me from unleashing a blitzkrieg-style onslaught is that the purpose of the article is fuzzy. I’m not sure whether or not he’s picking the five most intriguing rotations, or the five best. If it is the latter, then God have mercy on Mr. Kurkjian’s soul. But the section at the bottom entitled “The Rest of the Best Five Rotations” makes me pessimistic.

Anyway, Kurkjian seems to think the Red Sox have the best rotation in MLB. Let’s hear it:

 The team we’ve chosen has as many questions — six — as it has starting pitchers: a rookie from Japan, a guy with a 5.01 ERA last year, a 40-year-old who only recently decided that 2007 won’t be his last season, a closer turned starter, a lefty with cancer in remission and a 40-year-old knuckleballer.

Ok, this is a bad start. Tim has, in record time, pretty much shredded his own argument before he even began. However…

 …if everything falls right, the Red Sox could have the best rotation in baseball with Daisuke Matsuzaka, Josh Beckett, Curt Schilling, Jonathan Papelbon, Jon Lester, and Tim Wakefield.

This is stupid. I’m going to ignore the “if everything falls right” thing, because I don’t want to have a stroke at age 20. There are also about a hundred “if”s, “even though”s, “can”s and “could”s in this article. If you’re picking the best rotation – as it seems is Tim’s intent – it’s usually a good idea to pick one with some stable track record of aptitude, or some statistical indicators of impending aptitude. The Red Sox rotation, as a whole, fails on both these counts. Consider the 2006 Red Sox rotation:

• Curt Schilling: 204  IP, 183 K, 28 BB, 28 HR, 3.97 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, 116 ERA+
• Josh Beckett: 204 IP, 158 K, 73 BB, 36 HR, 5.01 ERA, 1.29 WHIP, 92 ERA+
• Tim Wakefield: 140 IP, 90 K, 51 BB, 19 HR, 4.63 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 100 ERA+
• Daisuke Matsuzaka: never pitched before in MLB
• Jon Lester: 81 IP, 60 K, 43 BB, 7 HR, 4.76 ERA, 1.65 WHIP, 97 ERA+ before cancer
• Jonathan Papelbon: closer last year, 68 IP, 75 K, 13 BB, 0.92 ERA, 0.78 WHIP

Here’s what I take from the facts before us:

• Schilling is still moving along as an above-average pitcher, but he is 40 years old. He probably isn’t getting any better. He is still a good pitcher.
• Beckett was an abomination last year, giving up the second most HR in the league and allowing the fifth most walks. And also, he was lucky, with opposing hitters’ BABIP only .265 -  below the .290 average. Someone please explain to me why we are fawning over him.
• Wakefield is the operational definition of an average pitcher. 100 ERA+ = average. He’s 40 years old, although who knows if age is as much of a factor with knuckleballers. He also throws like a fairy.
• Matsuzaka has never thrown a pitch in MLB, although I believe he will be very good and probably the best pitcher on this staff.
• Lester’s WHIP makes my eyes bleed. Strikes are your friend, Jon.
• Papelbon was the best relief pitcher in baseball last year before shoulder trouble shut him down. Now, the Red Sox are moving him into the rotation to give him more regular work, thus strengthening his shoulder. I’m still not sure how 200 IP is better for a bad shoulder than 68 IP, but I’ll leave that aside. It’s tough to predict how he’ll do, but PECOTA has him at a 4.07 ERA and a 1.32 WHIP, which is good.

Let’s summarize. The Red Sox have the best starting rotation if, as Kurkjian said, “everything falls right”. What is “everything”?:

(1) Schilling remains good at age 40, (2) Wakefield remains average at age 40, Beckett stops giving up (3) dingers and walks and remains lucky, (4) Matsuzaka meets the lofty expectations placed on him, (5) Lester realizes there’s a plate over which he must throw the ball to get strikes, and (6) Papelbon makes a smooth transition from 68 IP to 200 IP without hurting his problematic shoulder.

As you can see, the intersection of six separate, independent events must occur for the Red Sox to have the best rotation in baseball. This is incredibly unlikely. This is like saying “if everything doesn’t suck, everything will be fine”. That’s not good enough for best rotation. At all. Shame on you, Tim Kurkjian.