Miscellaneous Stuff

[MarcoPolo]

If you're talking about baseball-reference.com, I agree. Detailed stats about draft, all minor league performance, etc. But I really like the fact that minorleaguecentral mixes all of the levels together - it's very easy to "window shop".

No. I think minorleaguecentral has more detail. For instance,

Damn, it would have been clearer if I had added a word. I mentioned it in the post previous to mine above: *history*. I was talking about year-by-year OLDER stats. My sentence should have been :

Detailed historical stats about draft, all minor league performance, etc.

to make it obvious I was talking about past performance.

minorleaguecentral has great *current* stats - but the 2-3 guys I clicked on to get their historical info, it only went back 1 year (current season and last year). baseball-reference.com (generally) has their minor league stats for every season they played in the minors, what year and what round they were drafted.

As I said in my post before the one quoted here : "I think I might switch {to minorleaguecentral} (for tracking current stats - minorleaguecentral doesn't seem to have as good individual history as baseball-reference). "

minorleaguecentral has fantastic and detailed current stats.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Then again, maybe I'm using minorleaguecentral wrong and there IS a ways to see all of a players historical info...

 

[gp956]

Then again, maybe I'm using minorleaguecentral wrong and there IS a ways to see all of a players historical info...

I don't think so. They're a new service, and they're using their own "stringers" at games to record all the data. Apparently, we're not to put too much trust in the 2011 data either. At least not the data unique to them. It'll take a couple more years to put all the numbers in context, i.e. park and league factors, and to determine to what extent each stat effects matriculation rates and eventual ML success.

 

[gp956]

Now that Panda is coming back, what is the expected impact on wins?

Panda's wOBA is .390
Arias's is .259
NL league average is .312

The expected effect on run production is: [(.390 - .312) - (.259 - .312)]*AB/1.15
Assuming 340 AB remaining in the year, the Giants should expect to score 39 more runs with Panda vs. Arias the rest of the way. And that translates to about 3.68 more wins.

 

[tzill]

Now that Panda is coming back, what is the expected impact on wins?

Panda's wOBA is .390
Arias's is .259
NL league average is .312

The expected effect on run production is: [(.390 - .312) - (.259 - .312)]*AB/1.15
Assuming 340 AB remaining in the year, the Giants should expect to score 39 more runs with Panda vs. Arias the rest of the way. And that translates to about 3.68 more wins.

And Expected Wins x 1125.46 = about 4142 more panda hats sold. It's scientific.

 

[tzill]

Bullpen thoughts:

Current configuration--
Casilla -- CL
Romo -- 8th inning
Affeldt/Hensley -- 7th inning
Lopez - LOOGY
Loux/Edlefsen -- Good G-d, it's a blowout

Runzler just started his rehab stint in San Jose, so if all goes well he should be back in two weeks. When back, Loux is gone. The question becomes, who replaces Edlefsen?

My guess: Kontos. 32.1 IP 1.71 ERA 7.4 K/9 3.7 K/BB

Sabean raped the Royals for Leche, molested the Mets for Oxy. Maybe he hit on the Yanks for Kontos?

 

[gp956]

oh! Good call.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Yanks got raped on that trade. Stewart for 6 years of (what could be) a good-to-great middle reliever?

 

[gp956]

Tom Verducci, Si - Jan 18 2012:

Innings limits on young pitchers have become standard operating procedure with most organizations. The young pitchers who were shut down last year as a precautionary measure included Danny Duffy of Kansas City, Michael Pineda of Seattle and Jordan Zimmerman of Washington, a club that already has a governor on the 2012 workload of Stephen Strasburg.

But what happens to the best intentions when a young pitcher is in a pennant race? In virtually every case a team will keep sending the young pitcher to the mound while suddenly finding faith in "good mechanics" and "hard work." The Rangers (Derek Holland and Matt Harrison), Cardinals (Jaime Garcia), Brewers (Yovani Gallardo), Diamondbacks (Daniel Hudson) and Rays (Jeremy Hellickson) all pushed young pitchers aggressively last year for a shot at the World Series.

The extra work comes with a price. And the toll usually shows up the following season.

This year I have divided the Red Flag List into two categories: the six pitchers put at risk while pitching for contenders into the postseason, and the eight pitchers who busted through the threshold while pitching for teams out of contention. (Their listed age is their age at the halfway mark of last season.)

.......

2. Jaime Garcia, 24, Cardinals (+57). His workload, like that of Hamels of the 2008 world champion Phillies, is part of the price of winning a world title. The Cardinals shut down Garcia late in 2010 because of his increase in innings. But such thinking did not apply last year while St. Louis chased down Atlanta for the NL wild card and then made a postseason run to the world championship. Garcia threw 25 2/3 postseason innings.

Jaime is out for a minimum of four weeks after an MRI showed Labrum and Rotator Cuff tears.

3. Eric Surkamp, 23, Giants (+44). The lefty from North Carolina State has a swing-and-miss curveball that recalls the Zito of his prime. Surkamp began the year in high-A ball and finished it with six games in the big leagues, proving once again that San Francisco may be the most aggressive team in baseball when it comes to letting young pitchers throw.

Surkamp, we know, is still shutdown with elbow pain.

 

[tzill]

Tom Verducci, Si - Jan 18 2012:





Jaime is out for a minimum of four weeks after an MRI showed Labrum and Rotator Cuff tears.



Surkamp, we know, is still shutdown with elbow pain.

Didn't he "red flag" MadBum last year?

 

[gp956]

Didn't he "red flag" MadBum last year?

Probably. Madbum had a huge jump in innings from 2009 to 2010, and, given his age, I'm sure he was the #1 verducci effect candidate.

 

[gp956]

Add Derek Holland to Verducci's list of correct calls:

1. Derek Holland, 24, Rangers (+71 1/3). He threw 222 innings, a huge jump from his previous high (150 2/3 in 2008) and even more from what he threw in 2010 (134 1/3). He pitched six times in the postseason, including two relief appearances and 25-out scoreless gem of a start in World Series Game 4. He maintained his stuff well through his seventh month of last year, but the real test of his grind will be how he bounces back this year.

Holland went on the DL Thursday with shoulder fatigue.

 

[gp956]

Motivated by a discussion Cal is having with DR.B. on the docs blog:

calsnowskierJune 10, 2012 10:46 AM
Doc, you mention that it takes 3-5 years to grade a draft. So why not do that? It has been 5 years since the big one. I have my opinions on it, but I would like to see a nice study of it by you t.o get your feel for it.


DrBGiantsfanJune 10, 2012 11:27 AM
If you are referring to 2007, they get a solid A for Bumgarner alone. Everything else is gravy.

Just off the top of my head:

I think each #1 pick in 2007 needs to be evaluated on it's own, then each of those evaluations should be combined to give an overall rating. A suggested methodology would be to use the WAR metric to assign grades (probably adjusted for the position drafted within the first round, since we would all expect a supplemental pick to be much less talented than a top ten pick in any average draft). For instance, the average top ten pick has earned an average WAR of 8.5, and we'd expect Bumgarner to blow that away over his career. Alternately, Jackson Williams will almost certainly never have a positive WAR in the majors. But players outside the top 10, yet still in the first round, earn an average of WAR of roughly 3. Although 50% of them never reach the majors, so you cannot really call Jackson Williams' failure "unexpected".

So what might you expect from the 2007 draft? Let's combine the average WARS weighted by the expected matriculation rate for their first round sub-cohort.

73% of top ten picks make the majors
50% of those outside of the top ten, but still in the first round make the majors.

So let's try this:

expected WARS:
Madison Bumgarner: 8.5 * 0.73
Tim Alderson: 3 * 0.50
Wendell Fairley: 3 * 0.50
Nick Noonan: 3 * 0.50
Jackson Williams: 3 * 0.50
Charlie Culberson: 3 * 0.50

Total Expected WAR: 8.5 * 0.73 + 5 * (3 * 0.5) = 13.7 WAR

Now achieving the average should not be considered an "A" grade, perhaps doubling expectations is an "A"? <-----Opinions needed. But, I think it's fair to say that Bumgarner should have a career similar to Roy Halladay's, and Roy might top 70 WAR before he's done. So, I think Dr.B's "A" grade is defensible, assuming all my WAR numbers and methodology withstand scrutiny.

p.s. I think I already see that I'm probably under counting expected WAR, by using the average WAR achieved, as that includes the matriculation failures. Probably should use an average WAR that excludes matriculation failures (still keeping the sub-cohorts intact, though).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Looking through previous drafts, I noticed that Scott Barnes (traded for Ryan Garko) is now in the majors and has a WHIP of ... 0.50 (in 3 relief appearances).

 

[calsnowskier]

Motivated by a discussion Cal is having with DR.B. on the docs blog:




Just off the top of my head:

I think each #1 pick in 2007 needs to be evaluated on it's own, then each of those evaluations should be combined to give an overall rating. A suggested methodology would be to use the WAR metric to assign grades (probably adjusted for the position drafted within the first round, since we would all expect a supplemental pick to be much less talented than a top ten pick in any average draft). For instance, the average top ten pick has earned an average WAR of 8.5, and we'd expect Bumgarner to blow that away over his career. Alternately, Jackson Williams will almost certainly never have a positive WAR in the majors. But players outside the top 10, yet still in the first round, earn an average of WAR of roughly 3. Although 50% of them never reach the majors, so you cannot really call Jackson Williams' failure "unexpected".

So what might you expect from the 2007 draft? Let's combine the average WARS weighted by the expected matriculation rate for their first round sub-cohort.

73% of top ten picks make the majors
50% of those outside of the top ten, but still in the first round make the majors.

So let's try this:

expected WARS:
Madison Bumgarner: 8.5 * 0.73
Tim Alderson: 3 * 0.50
Wendell Fairley: 3 * 0.50
Nick Noonan: 3 * 0.50
Jackson Williams: 3 * 0.50
Charlie Culberson: 3 * 0.50

Total Expected WAR: 8.5 * 0.73 + 5 * (3 * 0.5) = 13.7 WAR

Now achieving the average should not be considered an "A" grade, perhaps doubling expectations is an "A"? <-----Opinions needed. But, I think it's fair to say that Bumgarner should have a career similar to Roy Halladay's, and Roy might top 70 WAR before he's done. So, I think Dr.B's "A" grade is defensible, assuming all my WAR numbers and methodology withstand scrutiny.

p.s. I think I already see that I'm probably under counting expected WAR, by using the average WAR achieved, as that includes the matriculation failures. Probably should use an average WAR that excludes matriculation failures (still keeping the sub-cohorts intact, though).

I am NOT of the opinion that it was an A draft. Sure, a HR was hit at 10 with Bum, but we were no hit with the other 5 picks in the 1st round. you can not grade a draft with one pick at 20 on the same scale as a draft with six picks in the top 50.

The bum pick was an A+, the Craw pick (4th rd) was an A+. But the first round as a whole, IMHO, was a B- at best.

 

[gp956]

I am NOT of the opinion that it was an A draft. Sure, a HR was hit at 10 with Bum, but we were no hit with the other 5 picks in the 1st round. you can not grade a draft with one pick at 20 on the same scale as a draft with six picks in the top 50.

The bum pick was an A+, the Craw pick (4th rd) was an A+. But the first round as a whole, IMHO, was a B- at best.

I know what your saying. Take Bum off the table and the Giants seemed to have whiffed on 5 top fifty picks. But we'd expect the average team to whiff on 2.5 of those, right? And only get about 9 WAR from the other 2.5 - say two and a half Nate Schierholtzs.

BTW, Tim Alderson seems to have righted himself, and Culby and Noonan may yet provide some positive WAR as backups.

 

[msgkings322]

Now that Panda is coming back, what is the expected impact on wins?

Panda's wOBA is .390
Arias's is .259
NL league average is .312

The expected effect on run production is: [(.390 - .312) - (.259 - .312)]*AB/1.15
Assuming 340 AB remaining in the year, the Giants should expect to score 39 more runs with Panda vs. Arias the rest of the way. And that translates to about 3.68 more wins.

What's Panda's wOBA when he weighs over the NL league average wOBA? Because if this fatso is who we got the rest of the year, then we got a problem.

 

[gp956]

What's Panda's wOBA when he weighs over the NL league average wOBA? Because if this fatso is who we got the rest of the year, then we got a problem.

Hmm. You didn't seem this alarmed back in April.

 

[msgkings322]

Hmm. You didn't seem this alarmed back in April.

Hmm, was he a tubagoo after sitting out for a month back in April?

 

[gp956]

Hmm, was he a tubagoo after sitting out for a month back in April?

He was fat, for sure. Now he just needs some reps to get back to being to where he was in April.