Webb vs. Haren

Andy Tu La Daddy · Post by **Andy Tu La Daddy** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:30 am

I know that I am in the minority but .......

I was wondering if anyone else felt that Dan Haren would have a better statistical season than Webb?

I strongly believe this will happen. So strongly in fact that I had Haren rated higher than Webb based on the stat anticipation and the number of innings that Webb has thrown the past few years.

JEagle · Post by **JEagle** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:46 am

I agree with you..hence my drafting of Haren in rd 5

NorCalAtlFan · Post by **NorCalAtlFan** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:55 am

I don't think you can go wrong either way, but I feel that Webb will have a little better season.

kgrady · Post by **kgrady** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:11 pm

I had Webb ranked just ahead of Haren, although it's very possible Haren will have the better season. Webb is probably a little bit safer play.

Kevin

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:49 pm

I have about 20 starters between the two, with Haren ranked ~25-30th with a 4.20/1.23 projection.

jdoggmms · Post by **jdoggmms** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:54 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I have about 20 starters between the two, with Haren ranked ~25-30th with a 4.20/1.23 projection. ditto

i think webb's sinker is much more effective than haren's split

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:31 am

Euclid thinks Webb will have a 3.44 ERA with 16 wins and Haren will have a 3.57 with 16. Webb will pitch more innings but Haren will get more strikeouts. Haren is a more valuable commodity because you can get him 1-2 rounds later, but they are about even in pure value. But they are two of the most healthy *and* effective pitchers so it is hard to go wrong.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:12 am

Is pitching THAT easy?

Most people assume a good pitcher going from the AL to the NL will magically become great.

Don't they have to scout/gameplan a whole new crop of hitters to learn their cold zones and holes in their strikezones, what pitches they chase, etc.

Are not NL pitchers fairly well schooled in the art of the sacrifice bunt?

Isn't the NL a bit more gritty and more "manufature runs" oriented, and wouldn't that hurt your whip more than a bunch of hackers swinging out of their shoes?

Haren had a mediocre to poor ERA in all of

2003 (4.24)

2004 (4.34)

2005 (3.73)

2006 (4.12)

and the 2nd half of 2007 (4.38).

Those fairly crappy ERA numbers sure look like the "real" Dan Haren as opposed to a mere nice run during the first half of 2007.

Give me Webb all day every day...he's a much better and proven pitcher.

~Lance

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:31 am

IMO, webb is more established than haren, but haren will face a pitcher rather than the DH this year, which SHOULD lower his numbers from the previous three years. i don't feel he's as accomplished as webb, but he should be a top ten SP in the NL and SHOULD be counted on for 200+ IP with an ERA under 4.0, a WHIP under 1.25, 150-175 K's, and 15 Wins.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:52 am

Lance, I think it is pretty well established that when pitchers face off against hitters they've never seen before, the pitcher has the advantage--not that that is affecting my projection. He gets a small edge in increased strikeouts but takes a HR hit in the smaller ballpark. Note hat my projected ERA is in fact higher than his ERA for last season, but his skills are better than those stats you threw out.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:45 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Lance, I think it is pretty well established that when pitchers face off against hitters they've never seen before, the pitcher has the advantage--not that that is affecting my projection. He gets a small edge in increased strikeouts but takes a HR hit in the smaller ballpark. Note hat my projected ERA is in fact higher than his ERA for last season, but his skills are better than those stats you threw out. All very good points.... HR factor not as big IMO because he'll get extra starts in SD, LA and SF.

Andy Tu La Daddy · Post by **Andy Tu La Daddy** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:50 pm

Ted Lilly, Chris Young, Pedro Martinex (Bos to NYM), Roger Clemens (NYY to Hou). I am sure that there are others that support my theory that Haren's conversion to the NL will dramatically improve his stats, perhaps even a bit better than Webb!

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:56 pm

Originally posted by Andy Tu La Daddy:

Ted Lilly, Chris Young, Pedro Martinex (Bos to NYM), Roger Clemens (NYY to Hou). I am sure that there are others that support my theory that Haren's conversion to the NL will dramatically improve his stats, perhaps even a bit better than Webb! Since when is the NL fungible? There is quite a gap in coming over to AZ/PHL/CIN/COL/HOU than there is in going to SD/LA/FLA/WAS.

Is there statistical support that going from Oak to Ari reduces ERA? I wouldn't think so.

Andy Tu La Daddy · Post by **Andy Tu La Daddy** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:09 pm

Facing a pitcher at least once if not twice a game is MAJOR advantage over the course of a statistical season. Again, ask Roger Clemens from NYY to HoustoN!!!!

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:48 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Andy Tu La Daddy:

Ted Lilly, Chris Young, Pedro Martinex (Bos to NYM), Roger Clemens (NYY to Hou). I am sure that there are others that support my theory that Haren's conversion to the NL will dramatically improve his stats, perhaps even a bit better than Webb! Since when is the NL fungible? There is quite a gap in coming over to AZ/PHL/CIN/COL/HOU than there is in going to SD/LA/FLA/WAS.

Is there statistical support that going from Oak to Ari reduces ERA? I wouldn't think so. [/QUOTE]Pitchers clearly experience a strikeout surge when moving to the NL and strikeouts clearly have an effect on ERA--just not a dramatic effect when you're talking about maybe a 1 to 1.5 K/9 improvement.

Overall, the team you are playing for (offense, defense, bullpen, ballpark) has a much more dramatic effect on a guy's stats than the league, which is why it is tough to cherry-pick some examples. In my research I haven't found any difference in ERA given pitchers with the same peripheral stats between the two leagues.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:49 pm

Originally posted by Andy Tu La Daddy:

Facing a pitcher at least once if not twice a game is MAJOR advantage over the course of a statistical season. Again, ask Roger Clemens from NYY to HoustoN!!!! The AL scores 4% more runs than the NL. However, going from Oak to Ari increases runs scored by about 18%. So if half his games (home games) incr by 18% and the other half decline 4% (AL vs NL), his ERA would rise by 7% this season on park effect alone. This misinterpreted effect, along with his second half fade meant he was going much too early for me.

I see him in the high 3's this season, but I'd range that as ~ 3.40-4.40 --- 90%+ chance his ERA is worse this season than last.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:05 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Andy Tu La Daddy:

Facing a pitcher at least once if not twice a game is MAJOR advantage over the course of a statistical season. Again, ask Roger Clemens from NYY to HoustoN!!!! The AL scores 4% more runs than the NL. However, going from Oak to Ari increases runs scored by about 18%. So if half his games (home games) incr by 18% and the other half decline 4% (AL vs NL), his ERA would rise by 7% this season on park effect alone. This misinterpreted effect, along with his second half fade meant he was going much too early for me.

I see him in the high 3's this season, but I'd range that as ~ 3.40-4.40 --- 90%+ chance his ERA is worse this season than last. [/QUOTE]Adding 7% to last year's ERA gives him a 3.28, an amount that you can offset with the gained strikeouts.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:11 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Andy Tu La Daddy:

Facing a pitcher at least once if not twice a game is MAJOR advantage over the course of a statistical season. Again, ask Roger Clemens from NYY to HoustoN!!!! The AL scores 4% more runs than the NL. However, going from Oak to Ari increases runs scored by about 18%. So if half his games (home games) incr by 18% and the other half decline 4% (AL vs NL), his ERA would rise by 7% this season on park effect alone. This misinterpreted effect, along with his second half fade meant he was going much too early for me.

I see him in the high 3's this season, but I'd range that as ~ 3.40-4.40 --- 90%+ chance his ERA is worse this season than last. [/QUOTE]Adding 7% to last year's ERA gives him a 3.28, an amount that you can offset with the gained strikeouts. [/QUOTE]Problem is that 7% is inclusive of the strikeouts, so its still 7%.

And if you add 7% to his second half 4.12 ERA, you have a monumental failure.

[ March 23, 2008, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Andy Tu La Daddy · Post by **Andy Tu La Daddy** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:19 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Andy Tu La Daddy:

Facing a pitcher at least once if not twice a game is MAJOR advantage over the course of a statistical season. Again, ask Roger Clemens from NYY to HoustoN!!!! The AL scores 4% more runs than the NL. However, going from Oak to Ari increases runs scored by about 18%. So if half his games (home games) incr by 18% and the other half decline 4% (AL vs NL), his ERA would rise by 7% this season on park effect alone. This misinterpreted effect, along with his second half fade meant he was going much too early for me.

I see him in the high 3's this season, but I'd range that as ~ 3.40-4.40 --- 90%+ chance his ERA is worse this season than last. [/QUOTE]Adding 7% to last year's ERA gives him a 3.28, an amount that you can offset with the gained strikeouts. [/QUOTE]Problem is that 7% is inclusive of the strikeouts, so its still 7%.

And if you add 7% to his second half 4.12 ERA, you have a monumental failure. [/QUOTE]KJ Duke, you make some excellent, well supported points. I disagree with them but respectfully. Let's keep a close watch on this in 08. I will gladly admit that I am wrong should the season prove me to be so. I just don't see it happening.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:38 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Andy Tu La Daddy:

Facing a pitcher at least once if not twice a game is MAJOR advantage over the course of a statistical season. Again, ask Roger Clemens from NYY to HoustoN!!!! The AL scores 4% more runs than the NL. However, going from Oak to Ari increases runs scored by about 18%. So if half his games (home games) incr by 18% and the other half decline 4% (AL vs NL), his ERA would rise by 7% this season on park effect alone. This misinterpreted effect, along with his second half fade meant he was going much too early for me.

I see him in the high 3's this season, but I'd range that as ~ 3.40-4.40 --- 90%+ chance his ERA is worse this season than last. [/QUOTE]Adding 7% to last year's ERA gives him a 3.28, an amount that you can offset with the gained strikeouts. [/QUOTE]Problem is that 7% is inclusive of the strikeouts, so its still 7%.

And if you add 7% to his second half 4.12 ERA, you have a monumental failure. [/QUOTE]You only think it is inclusive. Average K rate in the NL last year was 6.70. In the AL it was 6.64. They are virtually identical. When Haren gains K's they will add real value.

He will get gains with better offense and defense as well.

And if you add the 7% to his first half stats, you have the best pitcher in baseball. You can slice the data to fit any argument, but if you are trying to project ERA using ERA you are in trouble anyhow. His peripheral stats (including his groundball rate) were actually better in the second half, supporting improvement.

Also if you need an explanation for the 2nd half ERA increase the A's good defense got hurt and traded in for the Scutaro defense. If you've ever seen Scutaro attempt to field, you will understand. That affected A's pitchers across the board.

My kung-fu is strong.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:41 pm

We've got some good player threads going here in the last few days - Haren, Weeks, Zambrano - while we're all dying to see some actual games. Will be fun to check back in a few months.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:45 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Andy Tu La Daddy:

Facing a pitcher at least once if not twice a game is MAJOR advantage over the course of a statistical season. Again, ask Roger Clemens from NYY to HoustoN!!!! The AL scores 4% more runs than the NL. However, going from Oak to Ari increases runs scored by about 18%. So if half his games (home games) incr by 18% and the other half decline 4% (AL vs NL), his ERA would rise by 7% this season on park effect alone. This misinterpreted effect, along with his second half fade meant he was going much too early for me.

I see him in the high 3's this season, but I'd range that as ~ 3.40-4.40 --- 90%+ chance his ERA is worse this season than last. [/QUOTE]Adding 7% to last year's ERA gives him a 3.28, an amount that you can offset with the gained strikeouts. [/QUOTE]Problem is that 7% is inclusive of the strikeouts, so its still 7%.

And if you add 7% to his second half 4.12 ERA, you have a monumental failure. [/QUOTE]You only think it is inclusive. Average K rate in the NL last year was 6.70. In the AL it was 6.64. They are virtually identical. When Haren gains K's they will add real value.

He will get gains with better offense and defense as well.

And if you add the 7% to his first half stats, you have the best pitcher in baseball. You can slice the data to fit any argument, but if you are trying to project ERA using ERA you are in trouble anyhow. His peripheral stats (including his groundball rate) were actually better in the second half, supporting improvement.

Also if you need an explanation for the 2nd half ERA increase the A's good defense got hurt and traded in for the Scutaro defense. If you've ever seen Scutaro attempt to field, you will understand. That affected A's pitchers across the board.

My kung-fu is strong. [/QUOTE]Good discussion bjoak, if Haren moves up from 7.8k/9 to 9k/9 I'll be impressed with your kungfu.

btw, that's not how I project ERA, just presenting a simple case against the AL to NL theory.

[ March 23, 2008, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:48 pm

I liked seeing his K improvement in the 2nd half. Smallish sample but it is supported by that excellent study on short term pitcher gains in the 2007 Shandler book.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:51 pm

My kung-fu is strong.

Classic!

~Lance