New Kids on the Block
Posted: Tue May 07, 2019 9:24 am
A fella asked me, "If you had one pitcher to trust to throw a great game right now, who would that pitcher be?"
The past five years, that question would get an almost immediate answer.
Now? Not so much.
Last year's Cy Young Award winners, Jake deGrom and Blake Snell have been spotty.
Perennial number one selected pitcher Max Scherzer has not been 'Mad Max'.
Really, he has only served to make his owners, mad.
The Nationals have lost seven of the eight games that Scherzer has started.
Back in the day, pitchers were not typically drafted till the third or fourth rounds of drafts.
It was widely thought by writers that, at most, pitchers could only help in four categories, not five like first and second round hitters.
It was also thought that hitters were a more reliable pick than hitters.
That last sentence is where we are now.
Sure, the great hitters have not been, well...great yet either, but there is more trust in Mike Trout and Mookie Betts than most top-grade pitchers.
A fantasy baseball scribe I know likes to rank pitchers. I asked him for his latest ranking.
Here is his top 10...
1. Max Scherzer
2. Justin Verlander
3. Trevor Bauer
4. Jake deGrom
5. Gerritt Cole
6. Blake Snell
7. Patrick Corbin
8. Clayton Kershaw
9. Carlos Carrasco
10. Aaron Nola
In non-fantasy terms, this is what I call 'rounding up the usual suspects'.
Most writers and drafters give more credence to pass performance than present performance.
Their reckoning being that these pitchers have been good over a longer period of time.
The problem in fantasy baseball is that we play in the present and future.
It is typical for 'experts' to rely on bulk past performance.
Ron Shandler thought there was no way Mike Trout could be as good as he was in a short period of time.
Trout has been the number one pick in most drafts since.
I look at the 10 pitchers listed above and I think that if I had one game to win, it would have to be thrown by the oldest pitcher on the list.
Justin Verlander.
Verlander has a past record and present.
He also has Kate Upton, which means nothing in the way of stats, but every time I write Kate Upton's name a wonderful visual appears in my head so I write Kate Upton's name.
But, Verlander would only be the pitcher I would select from these 10 names.
In the near-past (one-three years), I could throw these pitchers against any team and be sure that I'll get good results.
Now, I simply don't trust them.
Here is a blurb from RotoWorld last night....
'Martin Perez kept the train rolling Monday, throwing seven scoreless innings with a career-high nine strikeouts in a win over the Blue Jays.
Perez had never fanned more than eight batters in any of his previous 132 starts. He's struck out 39 in 41 1/3 innings for the season, or 22.8% of the batters he's faced. He fanned 13.1% of the men he faced last year. Even though Perez is obviously a better pitcher now than he's ever been before, we're not all that confident he'll remain an asset in mixed leagues for the long haul. The strikeout rate figures to remain solid, but he still walks too many and he's giving up plenty of flyballs, some of which figure to start turning into homers.'
This is typical of an 'expert'.
Martin Perez has no past wonderfullness (shuddup spellchecker, I know it's not a real word).
How dare he perform well without warning!
'Experts' rely on the past. It is where they get their projections. It is where they get their stories.
The past is safe.
After all, nobody can be accused of being wrong if Max Scherzer ends up with a 4.20 ERA and only eight Wins.
The PAST never indicated that!
But again, we play in the present and future.
The amusing thing being that we all KNOW the past.
And, especially 'experts', are doomed to believe it to be repeatable.
Here are the nineteen qualified pitchers in baseball with an ERA of 3.00 or under....
RK PLAYER ERA
1 Tyler Glasnow 1.47
2 Chris Paddack 1.55
3 Zach Davies 1.56
4 Luis Castillo 1.97
5 Caleb Smith 2.00
6 Max Fried ATL 2.11
7 Jordan Lyles 2.20
8 Spencer Turnbull2.31
9 Domingo German2.35
10 Mike Minor 2.40
11 Charlie Morton 2.52
12 Joe Musgrove 2.63
13 Frankie Montas 2.75
14 Jake Odorizzi 2.78
15 Martin Perez 2.83
16 Justin Verlander2.86
17 Jose Berrios 2.91
18 Marcus Stroman 2.96
19 Zach Eflin PHI 3.00
Only one name from my friend's list also appears on this list and that is Kate Upton...I mean Justin Verlander.
We are not programmed to accept that Zach Davies is a good pitcher..
We believe that his numbers are a mirage.
The problem with that thinking is that although he is a mirage in our minds, his stats are real for our opponents.
And what about Glasnow, Paddack, and Castillo?
These guys have been good. I mean damned good.
'Experts' will poo-poo them for three reasons.
1. They didn't perform this way in the past. (Although in their writings they will say that these pitchers have flashed wonderfullness (shuddup spellchecker) in their past)
2. Their numbers made their original projections look stupid.
3. They haven't proven themselves.
The problem with number three is that the stats provided now, count.
Not the one's from years ago.
Oh, we know that Paddack's innings will be limited and that Glasnow and Castillo will have speed bumps. We know that.
But guys like Nola have had CONSTANT speed bumps.
If picking between Nola and Paddack to throw a regular season game this week, I would select Paddack.
The 'experts' say that everything goes back to the mean.
The mean is mean.
Right now, Paddack yes, Nola, no.
RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW I would feel comfortable in throwing Glasnow, or Paddack, or Castillo against any of the writers top 10 pitchers.
I hated the band 'New Kids on the Block' but I like these new kids on the block.
As for the original top 10 by the writer. He can have them.
'Familiarity breeds contempt'. I believe that is from the Bible. A book I never read. (No baseball)
Those pitchers that have had great pasts are breeding contempt from the hitters faced. And worse, from us, their drafters.
Edits- Sorry, nitpicky grammar edits
The past five years, that question would get an almost immediate answer.
Now? Not so much.
Last year's Cy Young Award winners, Jake deGrom and Blake Snell have been spotty.
Perennial number one selected pitcher Max Scherzer has not been 'Mad Max'.
Really, he has only served to make his owners, mad.
The Nationals have lost seven of the eight games that Scherzer has started.
Back in the day, pitchers were not typically drafted till the third or fourth rounds of drafts.
It was widely thought by writers that, at most, pitchers could only help in four categories, not five like first and second round hitters.
It was also thought that hitters were a more reliable pick than hitters.
That last sentence is where we are now.
Sure, the great hitters have not been, well...great yet either, but there is more trust in Mike Trout and Mookie Betts than most top-grade pitchers.
A fantasy baseball scribe I know likes to rank pitchers. I asked him for his latest ranking.
Here is his top 10...
1. Max Scherzer
2. Justin Verlander
3. Trevor Bauer
4. Jake deGrom
5. Gerritt Cole
6. Blake Snell
7. Patrick Corbin
8. Clayton Kershaw
9. Carlos Carrasco
10. Aaron Nola
In non-fantasy terms, this is what I call 'rounding up the usual suspects'.
Most writers and drafters give more credence to pass performance than present performance.
Their reckoning being that these pitchers have been good over a longer period of time.
The problem in fantasy baseball is that we play in the present and future.
It is typical for 'experts' to rely on bulk past performance.
Ron Shandler thought there was no way Mike Trout could be as good as he was in a short period of time.
Trout has been the number one pick in most drafts since.
I look at the 10 pitchers listed above and I think that if I had one game to win, it would have to be thrown by the oldest pitcher on the list.
Justin Verlander.
Verlander has a past record and present.
He also has Kate Upton, which means nothing in the way of stats, but every time I write Kate Upton's name a wonderful visual appears in my head so I write Kate Upton's name.
But, Verlander would only be the pitcher I would select from these 10 names.
In the near-past (one-three years), I could throw these pitchers against any team and be sure that I'll get good results.
Now, I simply don't trust them.
Here is a blurb from RotoWorld last night....
'Martin Perez kept the train rolling Monday, throwing seven scoreless innings with a career-high nine strikeouts in a win over the Blue Jays.
Perez had never fanned more than eight batters in any of his previous 132 starts. He's struck out 39 in 41 1/3 innings for the season, or 22.8% of the batters he's faced. He fanned 13.1% of the men he faced last year. Even though Perez is obviously a better pitcher now than he's ever been before, we're not all that confident he'll remain an asset in mixed leagues for the long haul. The strikeout rate figures to remain solid, but he still walks too many and he's giving up plenty of flyballs, some of which figure to start turning into homers.'
This is typical of an 'expert'.
Martin Perez has no past wonderfullness (shuddup spellchecker, I know it's not a real word).
How dare he perform well without warning!
'Experts' rely on the past. It is where they get their projections. It is where they get their stories.
The past is safe.
After all, nobody can be accused of being wrong if Max Scherzer ends up with a 4.20 ERA and only eight Wins.
The PAST never indicated that!
But again, we play in the present and future.
The amusing thing being that we all KNOW the past.
And, especially 'experts', are doomed to believe it to be repeatable.
Here are the nineteen qualified pitchers in baseball with an ERA of 3.00 or under....
RK PLAYER ERA
1 Tyler Glasnow 1.47
2 Chris Paddack 1.55
3 Zach Davies 1.56
4 Luis Castillo 1.97
5 Caleb Smith 2.00
6 Max Fried ATL 2.11
7 Jordan Lyles 2.20
8 Spencer Turnbull2.31
9 Domingo German2.35
10 Mike Minor 2.40
11 Charlie Morton 2.52
12 Joe Musgrove 2.63
13 Frankie Montas 2.75
14 Jake Odorizzi 2.78
15 Martin Perez 2.83
16 Justin Verlander2.86
17 Jose Berrios 2.91
18 Marcus Stroman 2.96
19 Zach Eflin PHI 3.00
Only one name from my friend's list also appears on this list and that is Kate Upton...I mean Justin Verlander.
We are not programmed to accept that Zach Davies is a good pitcher..
We believe that his numbers are a mirage.
The problem with that thinking is that although he is a mirage in our minds, his stats are real for our opponents.
And what about Glasnow, Paddack, and Castillo?
These guys have been good. I mean damned good.
'Experts' will poo-poo them for three reasons.
1. They didn't perform this way in the past. (Although in their writings they will say that these pitchers have flashed wonderfullness (shuddup spellchecker) in their past)
2. Their numbers made their original projections look stupid.
3. They haven't proven themselves.
The problem with number three is that the stats provided now, count.
Not the one's from years ago.
Oh, we know that Paddack's innings will be limited and that Glasnow and Castillo will have speed bumps. We know that.
But guys like Nola have had CONSTANT speed bumps.
If picking between Nola and Paddack to throw a regular season game this week, I would select Paddack.
The 'experts' say that everything goes back to the mean.
The mean is mean.
Right now, Paddack yes, Nola, no.
RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW I would feel comfortable in throwing Glasnow, or Paddack, or Castillo against any of the writers top 10 pitchers.
I hated the band 'New Kids on the Block' but I like these new kids on the block.
As for the original top 10 by the writer. He can have them.
'Familiarity breeds contempt'. I believe that is from the Bible. A book I never read. (No baseball)
Those pitchers that have had great pasts are breeding contempt from the hitters faced. And worse, from us, their drafters.
Edits- Sorry, nitpicky grammar edits