NFBC Content Panel: Top 25 Starting Pitchers

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:09 pm

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Big Dog, I'm just curious...

You aren't at all concerned that Weaver's BABIP was an unbelievably low .239 and DIPS theory suggests it should correct towards the more normal .300-.310?

And furthermore, you are not all worried about the fact that Weaver is an extreme fly ball pitcher? If some of those lucky breaks last year fall for hits this year, and he stays at the league norm of 11% fly balls for homers, his ERA could possibly suffer.

Don't get me wrong, Weaver is very good. But he was extremely lucky last season. In 330 AB when the ball was put in play, by rights he should have given up about 100 hits, but he only gave up 79. Add those 21 lucky hits onto his WHIP and it goes from 1.03 to 1.12 -- still very good but not 1.03. If the same percentage of baserunners score, his ERA rises from 2.56 to 3.04. Again, 3.04 is quite good, just not 2.56.

Now imagine if he was unlucky next year -- his stats could even be worse than 3.04/1.12.

Sorry, he is not even close to 10x safer than Matsuzaka. He is a risk as well. His 2006 stats are representative of a lucky pitcher, which is nothing unusual with such a small sample of 123 IP. Todd, all good stuff and you could be right on the adjustment. All I have to say is Weavers "fly ball" stats defy the way Vlad's and Soriano's stats can. That comes from watching every game he pitched in last year and being at all the home ones.

An incredible vast majority of his fly outs are very easy outs... Can a corns.. Kinda like Wang and his ground balls being the extreme at the other end.

It's possible he still posts a low BABIP. "Bay Area Blacks in Philanthropy" when I googled it

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:48 pm

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Big Dog:

I say high 4's to low 5's barely making him a top 40 let alone top 20. Since everyone has found their favorite thing in your quote to abuse you on this is mine. A pitcher with an era in the high 4's or low 5's barely in the top 40- if you truely believe that then he is barely draftable even in this format. [/QUOTE]Looks like fun, let me pile on too.

Originally posted by Big Dog:

He's an absolute unknown.

I see him struggling mightily, and he could very well be sent to the minors by the All-Star break. If he is "an absolute unknown", how could you possibly expect him to "struggle mightily"? Seems more appropriate to say something like, "I have no idea how well he'll do".

I also wonder why a team with a staff of professional scouts would commit $103 million to "an absolute unknown" player who is so lacking in talent that he is destined be to a below-average player and end up in the minors in a couple of months?

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:49 pm

It's possible he still posts a low BABIP. I don't see it. The biggest problem with his flyballs is they will go to the Angels 2007 outfield, which defensively is not as bad as the Red Sox, but it's close. One of the reasons he rated relatively poorly in my system.

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:21 am

oops, might have slipped when I said he was "unknown".

Let me clarify.

THE MAN HAS NEVER PITCHED IN THE MAJORS BEFORE!

This is just like last year when I argued that Beckett was overrated. Nobody listens until they witness it for themselves. Well, welcome to the 2007 baseball season.

SluggoJD · Post by **SluggoJD** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:40 am

Big Dog, I'm curious...where did you warn people about Beckett last year? You made this statement to a group of people who have every right to be skeptics, so I hope you can back it up.

Although I feel that some of the postings around here have become very "my dad can kick your dad's ass" - like, and I wish everyone would just get along, I do have to strongly agree with others in support of Matsuzake.

I guess we'll all know a lot more come October.

The Mighty Men · Post by **The Mighty Men** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:39 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: He's an absolute unknown. I think it is best for everyone that you are staying home. [/QUOTE]Is this comment really necessary?

[ January 28, 2007, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Men ]

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:25 am

Todd, all good stuff and you could be right on the adjustment. All I have to say is Weavers "fly ball" stats defy the way Vlad's and Soriano's stats can. That comes from watching every game he pitched in last year and being at all the home ones.

An incredible vast majority of his fly outs are very easy outs... Can a corns.. Kinda like Wang and his ground balls being the extreme at the other end.

But John, his FB/HR was at 11.5%, league average. I was not saying the bad luck had to do with the FB rate (like with Beckett, whose FB rate showed serious bad luck last season). My point was he will allow a lot of HR relative to another pitcher with the same HR rate, but allows fewer flies. And if his hit rate corrects, there will have been more people on base for those homers.

That said. Gene McCaffrey talks about how EXTREME fly ball pitchers are quite successful, including some guy named Johan. It helps their K-rates limit the number of flyballs given up and their walk rates minimize damage when they do give one up.

Recent improvement in data collection has helped us explain Soriano and Vlad a little better, but I am still at a loss when it comes to figuring out Wang -- who is not just extreme ground ball, but he doesn't strike anyone out and his walk rate is not THAT good.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:47 am

Originally posted by Big Dog:

oops, might have slipped when I said he was "unknown".

Let me clarify.

THE MAN HAS NEVER PITCHED IN THE MAJORS BEFORE!

Little Pup - ask the All Star Major Leaguers who faced him in the WBC or in the exhibition games in the last few years.

No one is saying he will be a top five SP, but I think he will definitely be in the top twenty. Yes there will be some adjustments he will have to handle - the travel and pitching schedules; being away from home and routine for a whole season; and facing major league hitters every day he pitches. BUT there is Zero chance he is sent to the minors.

Just because YOU haven't seen him pitch or think he is an unknown doesn't mean that is the reality.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:05 am

That said. Gene McCaffrey talks about how EXTREME fly ball pitchers are quite successful, including some guy named Johan. It helps their K-rates limit the number of flyballs given up and their walk rates minimize damage when they do give one up. It also lends itself to a very high pop-up rate.

Recent improvement in data collection has helped us explain Soriano and Vlad a little better, but I am still at a loss when it comes to figuring out Wang -- who is not just extreme ground ball, but he doesn't strike anyone out and his walk rate is not THAT good. I don't see Wang is very mysterious at all. His HR rate was .5, which is obscenely low even for a groundballer, and he doesn't walk many. On top of that the Yankees defense was fourth best last year (a non-repeatable event). When I plug last year's numbers for him into my (more accurate than deadly cobra accurate) pitching system he comes up as a 3.60 ERA. I'll take an error of .03 any day. Whether he can duplicate that home run rate this year and have success with the Yankees defense reverting to the mean is another question.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:09 am

Originally posted by The Mighty Men:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: He's an absolute unknown. I think it is best for everyone that you are staying home. [/QUOTE]Is this comment really necessary? [/QUOTE]I'm just using reverse psychology to try and get him to go. I'm sure he knows that too. I'd really like him to go if for no other reason it will finally convince Rockwell to come to Vegas this year.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:49 am

I don't see Wang is very mysterious at all. His HR rate was .5, which is obscenely low even for a groundballer, and he doesn't walk many. On top of that the Yankees defense was fourth best last year (a non-repeatable event). When I plug last year's numbers for him into my (more accurate than deadly cobra accurate) pitching system he comes up as a 3.60 ERA. I'll take an error of .03 any day. Whether he can duplicate that home run rate this year and have success with the Yankees defense reverting to the mean is another question.

My comment on Wang was not intended to mean I cannot justify the end result based on the underlying stats -- the HR rate says it all (as it does with a lot of pitchers.)

What I can't figure out is how to project him for the future. I like to break things down to skill versus luck. Specifically with Wang, is it skill or luck that renders his HR/FB rste well below league average? Anecdotally, it makes sense that someone with such strong GB tendencies induces weaker flies when he does give them up.

His BABIP was about .293, which is right around where it should be, but being a ground ball pitcher, as noted, he is at the mercy of his defense and that number is somewhat volatile.

So how much is skill and how much do we regress towards the norm is the mystery, not interpeting his past results.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:59 am

Suffice it to say I have him down for a 4.27 this year.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:19 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

I don't see Wang is very mysterious at all. His HR rate was .5, which is obscenely low even for a groundballer, and he doesn't walk many. On top of that the Yankees defense was fourth best last year (a non-repeatable event). When I plug last year's numbers for him into my (more accurate than deadly cobra accurate) pitching system he comes up as a 3.60 ERA. bjoak, a HR rate of .5 what?

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:44 am

Kevin - Wang's HR allowed rate is 0.5 per 9 IP

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:57 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

Kevin - Wang's HR allowed rate is 0.5 per 9 IP oh ok, I was looking at his 7% per fly HR rate, which is low but didn't strike me as "obscene"

[ January 28, 2007, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:59 am

I am very aware that Weaver will not be quite as good as he was last year. There was quite a bit of luck he had and I'm sure once hitters see him more they'll be able to pick up on the ball better. His windup and delivery takes awhile to deal with. I do think he is a very good pitcher, e.r.a. in the mid 3's. I certainly think he is better than Ervin Santana who is so inconsistent month to month it's not even funny.

I think when you look at the fact that Weaver has shown success in the majors (even in a short time) he certainly is more predictable than Matsuzaka.

I am very shocked about the people he passed in the rankings.

I understand there is a risk/reward strategy that is super important in the draft. I still think there are plenty of good pitchers you can choose later in the draft who have higher upside and less risk.

Somebody brought up a good point about Webb. He wins the Cy Young and he doesn't make the top 20?

That's crazy.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:03 am

That will also teach you to read - Webb is ranked 4th on the list :rolleyes:

The post was about the 2007 winner (the poster obviously thinking he knows who that will be - maybe they asked you or channeled Cy)

[ January 28, 2007, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Captain Hook ]

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:03 am

One pitcher I think is a stud for fantasy baseball if he ever pitched on a decent team and stayed healthy is John Patterson. This guy has Ben Sheets written all over him, the good reasons and the bad.

Power/control pitcher. Big time strikeout potential.

If healthy, could be a low e.r.a./low whip/high strikeout machine. Will never win very many games in Washington though.

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:07 am

Oops. You're right Captain Hook. I meant Bronson Arroyo (obviously not the Cy Young winner)

Thanks for correcting me in such an eloquent way.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:55 am

I think when you look at the fact that Weaver has shown success in the majors (even in a short time) he certainly is more predictable than Matsuzaka.

Cool, now we're getting somewhere. At minimum, this opinion is defensible. But to say Weaver is 10x safer than Matsuzaka when you're having a discussion with people who excrete stats is hyperbole that breeds a straw man's argument, and is not the best way to earn credibility. But whatever.

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:15 pm

You're right ToddZ. It was hyperbole to say Weaver is 10x more predictable. Not the best way to explain my position on this matter. Just another way of saying he's alot more predictable. How about 3x more predictable? jk

I haven't exactly heard a reasonable argument to stick him ahead of Weaver, Hamels, Sheets, Arroyo or anybody for that matter.

Still waiting......

Crazy Like a Fox · Post by **Crazy Like a Fox** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:24 pm

As far as Hamels is concerned, he can flat out pitch. I have a huge concern regarding his health though. I have a difficult time seeing him pitch a full season without any problems. Of course his ranking includes that. Cole Hamels, based on potential alone, should move up into the 15-20 range in my opinion.

Can be an elite pitcher in fantasy if he can prove he can stay healthy for atleast a couple years in a row.

As high as I am on Cain, it's not even close to what I think Hamels can become.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:39 am

I probably crapped out on this list. I really struggled looking at who, outside of potential, I would pick when the rubber hits the road in March.

I had Halladay at 9th. Eddie hit the nail on the head. I moved him down because, as good as he is, his K potential is not the same as some of the others I had ahead of him (Peavy, Bonderman, Zambrano).

I am a big fan of Matsuzaka. I think he is going to do well (yes, Big Dog, he will be luck to be in the low 4's...there were only 19 AL pitchers who actually broke the 4.00 ERA last year, so some luck is involved, but Matsuzaka has as much chance/tools as any pitcher so he could be there). I did not put him on the Top 25 list. I, like Rockwell, feel he is a better fit as third SP on my team chosing rather to take a Freddy Garcia type or Javier Vazquez (more experience, great skills) as my number two. If I feel he is a #3 SP, that would preclude him from this list.

To me, the same logic applies for Hamels. Great pitcher. Great upside. But I just could not pull the trigger. May regret that.

I did not have King Felix (too young) or Smoltz (I just do not know how long the duct tape and rubber bands in his elbow will hold up). As Top 25 pitchers, I would let other absorb that risk. Believe it or not, I would rather have Escobar as my number two. You can jump all over that one, because I am not too crazy about that. I have much work to do.

I did not have Arroyo on my list, but I think he was on the bubble for many. I did have Verlander. I guess you could write him off as the gamble I was comfortable with.

I told Greg I thought my own list was crazy. The five guys on the Top 25 I did not have on my list were Hernandez, Smoltz, Matsuzaka, Hamels, and Arroyo. Instead I had Verlander, Mussina, Vazquez, Escobar, and Garcia. I am ready to admit I missed the boat. Tell me why?

[ January 29, 2007, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:25 am

The only thing smoltz has done is produce. Why do people continue to doubt him?

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:40 am

Originally posted by Big Dog:

You're right ToddZ. It was hyperbole to say Weaver is 10x more predictable. Not the best way to explain my position on this matter. Just another way of saying he's alot more predictable. How about 3x more predictable? jk

I haven't exactly heard a reasonable argument to stick him ahead of Weaver, Hamels, Sheets, Arroyo or anybody for that matter.

Still waiting...... Perry why don't you take that one he does have a point- you were the one who had strong feelings.

I believe I actually had Weaver and Hamels ahead of him so I will not be making that one, Sheets is just too injury prone for my taste. Arroyo is just Arroyo- a pretty good pitcher who got hot for a stretch and will be very overvalued by the Big Dog types in 07. Beauty of it is it only takes one Big Dog in every league to get those types drafted too early.

Wayne- I think the obvious answer to your question is your list is a little too risk adverse. My qualifications for a number 2 starter are that they are a very good pitcher who I think has a better than avg chance to pitch like a number one. Four NFBC leagues last year and I got it right twice and wrong twice. Webb on 2 teams, Harden and Buerhle on the others. Not so sure I applied that logic with Buerhle but I thought I was getting value where we got him in the champs league- not so much value in the end.

So Wayne if you prescribe to my theory tell me about the day you visualize Vazquez or Freddy pitching like a number one?