Thursday, December 28, 2006

Rotation Slot

I enjoyed reading Jeff Sackmann’s recent columns on the relative strength of rotation spots (here and here). Sackmann divides up each team’s 2006 starting pitching output into 5 slots and reports the results, which show that the prevailing concept of a #1 starter, #2 starter, and so forth is strongly distorted. While this probably doesn’t come as a surprise to many sabertypes (I am reminded of debate in the Rich Lederer-Kevin Goldstein thread over whether “#1 starter” refers to a Top 30 starter or only to a group of pitchers numbering not more than a dozen) or anybody who has noticed that “#4” is oft-used to refer to someone with a league average ERA (and thus an above-average starter), it was nice to see an attempt to quantify it.

However, I think that Jeff fails to note some of the problems with the way he presents his findings, even if I suspect he is well aware of them. First, there is a semantic question: while in practice injuries typically force replacement-level (or sometimes worse) pitchers into the rotation, I think it’s still somewhat fair to refer to a 1-5 schema for rotation slots that assumes total health. Jeff’s model necessarily is disconnected from the reality of rotation slot discourse because he only goes from 1 to 5, when in reality fans, managers, and front offices often refer to “sixth starters” and so forth. The rotation slot talk is linked to talent, not performance, and so the need of teams to fortify their rotations with sub-5’s should be accounted for. I think the rotation slots discourse would, if it weren’t so artificially inflated, refer to pitchers in the top 30, top 60, top 90, etc. *prior to the talent pool being diluted by injury*. Obviously, some degree of injury needs to be included in such a model, but it should not be all, as Sackmann uses, or even the majority, I would say.

Second, these ERA’s are selectively sampled, plain and simple. If you went by DIPS numbers, for instance, you would find true 3’s labeled as both 1’s and 5’s, for instance, in Jeff’s sample. That does not mean that what Jeff did was not worthwhile, but since the talk of a “#1 starter” is used, as far as I can tell, mostly as an index of talent rather than performance, it is misleading in this context. If you want to gauge the talent level of a #1, the best way to do so is probably to take the average projection of the top 30 starters, then repeat from 31-60 for #2, 61-90 for #3, and so forth. Alternately, you can label the top 160 pitchers as 1-5 based on their projection tier before the season and then follow up at the end with their actual numbers. The downside to doing it otherwise is that you end up being blown away by the wretched numbers put up by the back end, as Jeff does. Well, since Jeff is taking the worst starters on the team to compose that #5, that will occur by definition as long as ERA has a fairly wide distribution, especially since Jeff is taking blocks composed of different pitchers to make his sample. While a reminder here and there that lots of “bad” pitching occurs in any given season isn’t a bad thing, it’s only a revelation when fans and media have drenched their rhetoric in Lake Woebegone expectations (i.e., all the pitchers should be above average).

While I haven’t endeavored to do an alternate study, I would suspect that a model to match my concept of 1-5 would set the tiers closer to 3.90, 4.30, 4.70, and 5.10 than Jeff's 3.87, 4.36, 4.84, and 5.67, and there would also be a cap on #5's at 5.50. Those are rough guesses, obviously, but I hope it communicates the general point that there can be a happy medium between the inflated concept of what a #2 etc. is on the one hand and including injury replacements and Joe Mays in the definitions on the other.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

L-uis Gonzalez?

I realize that most of my posts tend to in some way refer to a mis-valuation or mis-use of a player on the basis of not understanding the concept of platooning, and I try not to repeat these criticisms too frequently.

But come on, Ned Colletti. Enough is enough.

Last season, the Dodgers' outfield for the bulk of the season was Drew, Lofton, Ethier. Three left-handed batters as the outfield starters is far from ideal roster construction, especially with Ledee often serving as one of the backups. I don't think I ever made a big deal about it, but it sure bugged me.

Now, the Dodgers apparently are about to sign Luis Gonzalez, and to a reasonable deal. However, their OF would then principally be Gonzalez-Pierre-Ethier, and they've already committed money to Marlon F. Anderson. With the possible but unlikely exception of Ethier, none of those are players whose production against southpaws cannot be bettered by a near-freely available RHB's. The Dodgers may have a pair in Repko and Werth, as is. But this roster will not be constructed in such a manner as to make that reality even relevant, and one suspects that if they do platoon one of those, it will be Ethier - the only one who stands to gain anything meaningful by *not* being platooned.

While it may have been unrealistic and/or foolhardy to expect Garciaparra to be shifted to the outfield, this pre-empts that possibility, save for a decision by LA that Ethier won't be a starter. So does that mean that Garciaparra will be pencilled in at third while Betemit serves as the main infield sub as he did in Atlanta? One can hope, certainly. Otherwise, Saenz' role is akin to irrelevance, and Loney probably gets dealt once Jamey Wright and Lance Niekro hit a hot streak.

Sorry, kids, just having a hard time giving Colletti the benefit of any doubts here. If I didn't know better, I'd expect that somehow Loney, Penny, and Betemit end up being dealt for Joe Crede and Rob Mackowiak. I kid, but seriously - is there any mildly plausible explanation for the rumored shopping of Brad Penny, whose salary is the same as R.F. Wolf's? The abyss stares back, but I don't recall having stared in the first place.

***

Contest time: Guess the 2008 Salaries
I'll buy a 2008 THT Annual for anyone who is within $903,074 for all five.

Randy Wolf
Brett Tomko
Odalis Perez
Mark Hendrickson (arb eligible)
Aaron Sele

I think one of those is pretty easy. Guess which one, if you so please. Entries must be in the comments section by 10:38 a.m. PST on December 30th, 2006.