Don’t look now, but Giants GM Brian Sabean may very well be enjoying the best offseason of any GM, non-Yankees division. In addition to bringing still-nasty Randy Johnson into the fold for what figures to be a below-market deal, Sabean has added a potentially useful middle man in Bob Howry, a cheap power bat in Josh Phelps and a shortstop in Edgar Renteria who will at least abate those Brian Bocock-induced nightmares. But Sabean kicked off his solid winter by snagging southpaw Jeremy Affeldt to a shrewd two-year, $8 million deal.

A lefty who cooks with gas, Affeldt was nonetheless a perennial disappointment in Kansas City, throwing hard but indiscriminate pitches that often resulted in a free pass for the batter (that role is now dutifully filled by Kyle Farnsworth, who must have some embarrassing photos of Dayton Moore or something; how else does a replacement-level reliever snag two years and $9.25 mil? Farnsy might be able to outslug Affeldt, but outpitching him seems pretty unlikely. But I digress.)

After a solid 2003 campaign with K.C. (3.74 FIP in 18 starts and 18 relief appearances), Affeldt tossed 76.1 frames and a 4.16 FIP in 2004, again splitting time between the rotation and the ‘pen while battling a rib cage injury. He followed that up with a 2005 campaign in which he hit the DL with a groin strain on two separate occasions. After a disastrous ’06 season where he was traded to Colorado mid-season (97.1 IP, 5.65 FIP), he turned in a decent 2007 season with the Rockies, posting a 4.17 FIP in 59 innings. His control still left much to be desired, however (5.03 BB/9).

The 6-4, 225 pounder inked a 1-year, $3 million deal with the Reds last offseason. Upon reaching Cincy, Affeldt appeared to transform into a different type of pitcher. In 78.1 innings, he posted a career-best 3.66 FIP, generating nearly two ground balls for every flyball hit. One might that that Affeldt’s ’08 season was just a flash in the pan, the sort of thing that occasionally happens with relievers in a relatively small sample of innings. And perhaps that’s true. But, there are several reasons to believe that this new-and-improved Affeldt is here to stay.

Nothing in Affeldt’s stat sheet suggests that his performance in Cincy was a fluke. He upped his strikeout rate to a career-best 9.19 batters per nine innings, over two K’s per nine more than 2007. Most importantly, he shaved his walk rate by a significant margin, issuing 2.87 BB/9.

Not surprisingly, Affeldt increased his first-pitch strike percentage (F-Strike%). Batters found themselves behind 0-and-1 or put the ball in play 57.9% of the time in 2008, up from 55.7% in ’07 and just 49.3% in ’06. If anything, Affeldt was actually unlucky in 2008. His BABIP was .329 behind a leaky Cincinnati defense (29th in team Defense Efficiency), and his home run/flyball rate of 15% about 3-4% above the typical rate for pitchers. Using XFIP to normalize that HR/FB rate, Affeldt’s ERA drops to 3.40. For comparison, Francisco Rodriguez’s XFIP was 3.71 in 2008.

So, how did Affeldt turn his career around? The 29 year-old found an additional 2 MPH on his fastball, throwing his heater at an average velocity of 94.6 MPH (92.3 MPH in ’07). Also, his big-breaking, high-70’s curve showed a lot more bite this past season. Let’s take a look at Affeldt’s pitch f/x data from Josh Kalk’s blog:

2007

Fastball: 5.46 X, 10.05 Z
Curveball: -3.08 X, -1.25 Z
Changeup: 3.46 X, 8.29 Z

2008

Fastball: 5.87 X, 8.68 Z
Curveball: -4.87 X, -5.57 Z
Changeup: 6.48 X, 7.08 Z

(X is horizontal movement. A negative X number means that the pitch is moving in toward a right-handed hitter, while a positive X means that the pitch is moving away from a righty hitter (in to a lefty). Z is vertical movement- the lower the Z number, the more the pitch “drops” in the strike zone.)

Look at the difference in depth between his ’07 curve and the nasty hammer he threw in 2008- his ’08 curve dropped over four inches more in the zone than it did the previous year. With a hopping heater and a sinister hook, Affeldt lowered his Contact% to 73.5% (down from 81.2% in ’07, ranking between Grant Balfour and Hong Chih Kuo) and baited batters into fishing for a pitch outside of the strike zone 26% of the time (22.6% in ’07).

As of right now, Affeldt is penciled in to be either the 7th or 8th-inning guy in San Francisco, but it’s possible that he rises from that position at some point. Current closer Brian Wilson also misses plenty of bats, but he’s not infallible, as his career 4.34 BB/9 suggests. If Wilson experiences some rough moments, Affeldt has the goods to close the door and pick up some saves along the way.

Arizona Diamondbacks right-hander Brandon Webb generates ground balls. A lot of them. In fact, the University of Kentucky product lapped the competition in terms of burning worms in 2008, with a 3.15 GB/FB ratio (second place went to free agent Derek Lowe, at a distant 2.63 to one).

With so many of Webb’s offerings being pounded into the infield dirt, the D-Backs’ co-ace will often require the services of his infielders to convert those grounders into outs. Let’s take a look at Arizona’s projected starting infield for the 2009 season, with their 2008 and career UZR/150 ratings at their respective positions:

1B Conor Jackson: 4.4 UZR/150 in ’08, -1.6 UZR/150 career
2B Felipe Lopez: -7.9 UZR/150 in ’08, -4.4 UZR/150 career
SS Stephen Drew: -14.5 UZR/150 in ’08, -13.5 UZR/150 career
3B Mark Reynolds: -2.2 UZR/150 in ’08, -4.6 UZR/150 career

Yuck. Arizona’s projected infield rated as 20.2 runs below average per 150 games last season, and the career totals are even worse: -24.1 runs below per 150 contests. If these guys continue to flash leaden leather, Webb might not be on speaking terms with his infielders by May. Granted, the 29 year-old posted a .297 BABIP with Drew and Reynolds on the left side of the infield and Jackson occasionally at first in 2008, but it’s still disconcerting that such a groundball-centric pitcher will reside in front of four below-average defenders.

Over the past few weeks, I have discussed the importance of context when evaluating pitchers. Whether it be Texas’ similarly lagging fielding prowess or Seattle’s new incredibly rangy outfield, the quality of the defenders behind a pitcher can make a noticeable impact on his performance. When a batter puts the ball in play, the pitcher is fairly dependent upon his fielders to convert that ball into an out. When those defenders struggle to do so, that pitcher is going to surrender some hits and runs that he really shouldn’t have.

Luckily with Webb, the pitcher in question here also possesses excellent controllable skills that aren’t subject to the caprices of his defense. With a 2.82 K/BB ratio and few home runs surrendered, Webb posted a 3.28 FIP this past season. Webb is undoubtedly an excellent starter deserving of a high draft pick. But, it is worth noting that the fielders behind him aren’t especially adept and might cause his stat line to look a little worse than it should.

From the moment that Ian Snell (then named Ian Oquendo) was selected as a 26th-round afterthought in the 2000 amateur draft, he has had to fight an uphill battle to prove himself a capable major league starter. The Delaware native always possessed a live arm, but his diminutive stature (5-11, 198) gave scouts pause, and led many to predict that he would reside in the bullpen long-term. As Baseball America’s 2004 prospect handbook summed it up, “with his slight stature and two above-average pitches, he could wind up as a closer in the big leagues.”

As he breezed through the Pittsburgh farm system, however, Snell’s performance as a starter was too good to ignore. With 8.6 K’s per nine innings and 2.3 BB/9, Snell established himself as one of the most promising arms in the organization at the same time that high-pedigreed hurlers such as Bobby Bradley, John Van Benschoten and Sean Burnett fell by the wayside.

After a fairly promising 2006 season (4.58 FIP, 2.28 K/BB), Snell appeared to break through in 2007. His strikeout rate fell somewhat (from 8.18 in ’06 to 7.66 in ’07), but he trimmed his walks from 3.58 per nine innings to 2.94. He also made better use of his full arsenal of pitches, as worked in an 84 MPH changeup 10.2% of the time to supplement his 92 MPH fastball (52.5%) and 84 MPH slider (37.3%). With his HR/FB rate regressing from an astronomical 14.9% to 9.6%, Snell’s HR/9 figure dropped from 1.4 in 2006 to 0.95 in 2007. His FIP came in at a tidy 4.01.

After crossing the 200-inning threshold in ’07 and seemingly solidifying himself as the club’s ace, Snell did not fare near as well in 2008, as his ERA ballooned from 3.76 to 5.42.

While there some concerns that we’ll get to later, let’s focus on the positives first. Snell’s ERA was cringe-worthy, but it certainly overstated the extent of his struggles. His K rate remained relatively stable (7.39) and his FIP was a little worse than league-average, at 4.57. As Peter chronicled earlier, Snell was one of many Pittsburgh hurlers who suffered in front of an iron-gloved Bucco defense (19th in UZR at -17.8, 28th in Defensive Efficiency). Snell’s .358 BABIP was the second-highest mark among all qualified starters- only Kevin Millwood (.366) fared worse on balls put in play.

So, Snell wasn’t near as bad as his ERA or won-loss record would have you believe. Still, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some negatives to take out of his season. His walk rate jumped significantly, up to 4.87 per nine innings. Not surprisingly, Snell’s first-pitch strike percentage fell from 63.7% in 2007 to 56.5% in 2008; that put him in the same range as Livan Hernandez and Daniel Cabrera.

Generally speaking, a shoulder injury for a pitcher may materialize in decreased velocity, while an elbow malady is characterized by loss of control. Snell appears to fit that line of thought, as he hit the DL in late June with a strained right elbow. I’m not going to attempt to predict Snell’s health going forward, but it seems plausible that he could cut his free passes to a more tolerable level if the elbow is healed up.

Snell’s pitch selection also shifted in ’08, and not necessarily for the better . He increased his fastball usage nearly ten percent (from 52.5% to 62.2%), while still relying heavily on his slider (32.7%). Snell cut the use of his changeup in half, using the pitch only 5.1% of the time this past season.

One criticism that Snell faced as he climbed the ladder was his lack of a third offering. The 27 year-old uses his changeup reluctantly, instead preferring to focus on his fastball/slider mix against both lefties and righties. Without a pitch that reliably moves away from opposite-handed batters, Snell as had his share of problems with left-handed hitters. They hit him relatively hard in 2007 (.284/.353/.447), but 2008 was much worse: southpaws facing Snell transformed into Joe Mauer, scorching him to the tune of .314/.415/.498. Snell’s change doesn’t look like a bad pitch, dropping about four inches more in the zone than his fastball (the league average is about 2.9). Perhaps Snell doesn’t trust his changeup, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt to mix a few more in there against the lefties.

Going forward, Snell will almost certainly post a much lower ERA in 2009. Even if he were to continue walking a bunch of batters, his peripherals suggest he would be a league-average starter. If his elbow is mended and his control improves, he could compile another FIP in the low fours. That’s not headline-grabbing, but it’s certainly useful. However, if Snell is going to take the next step, he’s going to have to find a way to keep those pesky southpaws at bay.

As an ardent Pittsburgh Pirates fan, I have to admit that discussing B.J. Upton is something of an exercise in masochism. A wonderfully talented player, Upton nonetheless is a constant, sharp, prodding reminder of years of aimless drafting by the Bucs, motivated by frugality more than future upside. Add in the fact that Bryan Bullington (the Pirates’ ill-fated, 1st overall selection) is now in his third organization and a cornucopia of other ’02 first-rounders have borne fruit for their respective teams, and it’s enough to send this writer curling up into a ball playing Sister Sledge’s “We Are Family” until the unpleasant memories subside.

But enough of that. Today, I come to discuss Upton’s seemingly unlimited variety of skills. Expectations have certainly been high for the Norfolk, Virginia native ever since the Rays gladly snatched him up with the 2nd overall pick after the Pirates shot themselves in the foot, and Upton has more than held his own to this point. A career .277/.367/.426 hitter who made his debut in 2004, Upton is still just 24 years of age. He has displayed every tool that you could possibly desire in a major league player at some point during his time with the Rays. Let’s take a look at Upton’s multi-faceted game…

Plate Discipline: Upton has displayed an extremely selective eye for such a young player, drawing walks at a 12.4% clip during the course of his career. He posted the best walk rate of his career in 2008 (15.4%), and swung at just 15% of pitches thrown outside of the strike zone. That figure tied Cardinals third baseman Troy Glaus for the lowest mark among all qualified batters. With such a judicious approach, Upton fell behind 0-and-1 in the count or put the ball in play on the first pitch rarely, with a first-pitch strike percentage (F-Strike%) of 55.2%.

Power: Sure, Upton’s power output in ’08 was not extraordinary (.401 SLG%, .128 ISO), but the man was playing with a torn labrum in his left shoulder that sapped his pop for most of the year. Improved health during the postseason brought with it a surge in power, as Upton crushed nearly as many long balls (seven) in the playoffs as he did during the regular season (nine). B.J. slugged .508 with a .209 ISO in 2007, showing that he can hammer the ball as well as work the count.

Speed: While Upton’s shoulder precluded him from jogging around the bases with regularity, there was nothing wrong with his legs in 2008. The 6-3, 185 pounder swiped 44 bags, doubling his 2007 total. He could stand to be a little more selective (he got caught 16 times for a 73.3% success rate), but his base thievery still resulted in a positive 3.6 run contribution for the Rays (.22 for a SB, -.38 for a CS).

Contact Ability: This one is a little trickier to predict. Upton’s contact rate rose from 72.8% in 2007 to 80.5% this past season, and consequently his K rate dipped from 32.5% to 25.2%. We know that his power was down during the regular season. Did Upton, perhaps aware that he wasn’t as likely to slam a pitch over the fence, cut down on his swing in an effort to make more contact? And will those contact gains fade as he shows more extra-base pop and presumably swings for the bleachers with more frequency?

You name the skill, and Upton has shown it as some point during his big league tenure. Via Baseball-Reference, I found a very intriguing name among Upton’s most comparable players through age 23: Carlos Beltran.

Like Upton, Beltran is a center fielder who comes equipped with a tool set that would make Home Depot swoon: a very selective eye, solid power and excellent speed. It remains to be seen whether or not Upton’s raw athleticism will translate as well afield as it has for Beltran (per UZR, Upton was 4.6 runs above average in ’08), but the offensive comparison appears apt. Still a very young man and brimming with ability, Upton has future MVP written all over him.

It’s once again time to play one of our favorite games around these parts: Name That Pitcher! Here are our mystery hurlers…

Pitcher A: 69.1 IP, 11.94 K/9, 4.54 BB/9, .317 BABIP, 82.9 LOB%

Pitcher B: 67 IP, 11.82 K/9, 4.03 BB/9, .308 BABIP, 78.3 LOB%

As you can see, our mystery pitchers are strikingly similar. Both racked up huge strikeout numbers and walked a fair amount of batters. Neither guy experienced terrible luck on balls in play, though Pitcher A fared worse in that category. Pitcher A was also a little better in stranding runners on base. Overall, though, these two stat lines are near reflections of one another.

However, the perception of the two diverges pretty dramatically. Pitcher A was a perfect 41-for-41 in save opportunities and was considered to have perhaps the best relief season in the game. On the other hand, Pitcher B was considered a pretty large disappointment, so much so that he was shipped out of town for a middle reliever, a lukewarm third base prospect and a center fielder who posted a mind-numbing .276 wOBA (22.1 runs below average) in 2008.

So, who are these guys? As you’ve probably already guessed, Pitcher A is Brad Lidge. Pitcher B is…also Brad Lidge, in 2007.

While Lidge was somewhat better in 2008, this comparison serves to show how there really wasn’t that wide of a difference between “head case” Lidge in ’07 and “World Series champ” Lidge in ’08. Using Expected Fielding Independent ERA (XFIP) from The Hardball Times (which evaluates pitchers based on strikeouts, walks and a normalized home run/flyball rate), we find that ’07 Lidge (3.42) was a little worse than ’08 Lidge (3.06), but not by as much as one might initially think. What led to the big gap in perception?

Home runs. In 2007, Lidge gave up 9 long balls in 67 innings, or 1.21 per nine innings. His Home/Flyball rate was pretty lofty, at 13.2% (and that was actually an improvement from an inauspicious 16.4% mark in ’06). In 2008, Lidge served up only 2 home runs in 69.1 innings, or a measly 0.26 per nine innings.

Nothing changed dramatically in the Notre Dame product’s batted ball data- rather, his HR/FB rate sank to an absurdly low 3.9%. To put that into context, pitchers typically give up two and a half to three times as many homers per flyball hit, and Lidge’s career HR/FB is 10%. Couple regression to the mean with a homer happy ballpark (Citizens Bank’s three-year HR park factor is 122), and it seems very likely that Lidge’s HR rate will quadruple next season.

This is the challenge faced when evaluating reliever performance. We’re dealing with inherently small sample sizes, and a few fortunate or unlucky bounces here or there can dramatically change the perception and quality of a player’s season. By most measures, Brad Lidge circa 2007 was a doppelganger of the relief ace that helped the Phillies win a world championship. But because a few extra flyballs found their way into the stands in ’07 and virtually none did in ’08, the two seasons are viewed as different as night and day.

The purpose of this exercise is not to diminish Brad Lidge’s accomplishments this past season. He enjoyed an excellent ’08 campaign, racking up a league-leading 5.37 WPA. However, his minuscule HR/FB rate does figure to rise in 2009. With some extra souvenirs likely finding their way to the paying customers, Lidge might revert back to the 2007 version of himself next season. And you know what? That’s not really a bad thing.

At first glance, one might think that Jonathan Broxton just got lost on his way to a San Diego Chargers game. The 6-4, 290 pound behemoth wouldn’t at all look out of place in the huddle (and, in fact, he’s bigger than defensive end Luis Castillo). But Broxton is very much a pitcher, and as one might expect from such a frame, he is capable of tossing scorching fastballs that wear out radar guns everywhere.

Selected out of a Georgia high school in the second round of the 2002 draft, Broxton began his career as a starting pitcher. Fifty of his 87 career minor league appearances were of the starting variety, and he fared quite well in the role. In the High-A Florida State League in 2004, he punched out 144 batters in 128.1 innings, walking 43 and surrendering just 110 hits. Despite the success, Broxton was always seen as a reliever-in-the-making, with his premium heat, sharp slider, ample size and lagging changeup.

Suffice it to say, Broxton took to the bullpen well, and has posted three consecutive high-octane seasons for the Dodgers. His career Fielding Independent ERA (FIP) is 2.72, with a gargantuan 11.43 K/9 and 3.62 BB/9. Equipped with mid-to-high 90’s gas (which has actually increased in speed each year of his big league career) and an upper-80’s slider, Broxton has been extremely difficult to make contact with. His career Contact% is 72.4%, including a 71.2 mark in 2008 that ranked 10th among all qualified relievers.

Broxton was used in plenty of critical situations in ’08 (his LI was 1.7), but he didn’t perform as well as he had the previous two seasons. While he stranded runners at an 82.2% clip in ’06 and 75.1% in ’07, his LOB% fell to 67.7% in 2008. Broxton’s WPA was -0.14. With a low strand rate and a high BABIP (.328), however, he figures to improve going forward. Using Expected Fielding Independent ERA (XFIP) from The Hardball Times, we find that Broxton’s ’08 performance (2.91) fit right in with his 2006 (3.33) and 2007 (2.75) showings.

Though he didn’t fare especially well in high-leverage moments in 2008, Broxton still possesses all the skills necessary to become one of the best relievers in the NL. He’ll more than likely get the chance to prove his closer worthiness, as Takashi Saito was recently non-tendered due to concerns over the condition of his elbow. With the ability to miss bats by the bushel, Broxton figures to tackle hitters in the late innings in 2009.

Over the past few years, Sports Illustrated writer Tom Verducci has compiled a list of starting pitchers that he considers to be particularly risky heading into the next season. Verducci’s list is based on the concept that a young starter (age 25 or below) is at an increased risk of injury if he surpasses his innings pitched total from the previous season by 30 frames or more. As he so often does, Verducci summed up his reasoning in a very articulate manner:

“Why can’t they throw 200 innings? Simply put, they’re not conditioned for it yet. It’s like training for a marathon. You need to build stamina incrementally. The unofficial industry standard is that no young pitcher should throw more than 30 more innings than he did the previous season. It’s a general rule of thumb, and one I’ve been tracking for about a decade. When teams violate the incremental safeguard, it’s amazing how often they pay for it.”

Just as a runner must build up strength and endurance over a gradual period of time, a hurler must incrementally boost his workload, lest his arm suffer the pitching equivalent of a cold-turkey 26.2 mile run. The list of talented youngsters who have seemingly fallen victim to the “Verducci Effect” is both sizable and significant. Among those who crossed the 30+ threshold in 2005 and 2006 were Francisco Liriano, Gustavo Chacin, Adam Loewen, Scott Mathieson and Anibal Sanchez. Here’s a look at the list of seven guys that Verducci identified as high-risk entering 2008:

Ian Kennedy, +61 IP

5.45 FIP, 26 BB in 39.2 major league innings, DL stint for a strained right lat.

Fausto Carmona, +56.1 IP

0.83 K/BB ratio in 120.2 IP, DL stint for a left hip strain.

Ubaldo Jimenez, +41.2 IP

No problems here– Jimenez posted a very nice 3.83 FIP.

Tom Gorzelanny, +40.1 IP

Gorzelanny was an absolute mess this past season, with a 6.35 FIP, a demotion to the minors and a DL stint for a left middle finger injury.

Dustin McGowan, +38.2 IP

McGowan’s ascent was curtailed by a shoulder injury that required season-ending surgery.

Chad Gaudin, +36 IP

Gaudin posted a pretty solid 4.14 FIP, but he did take a trip to the DL in the spring for a nagging hip injury.

Yovani Gallardo, +33 IP

Gallardo also suffered a serious injury in ’08, but his was of the traumatic sort, as he tore his ACL covering first base at Wrigley Field. It’s hard to pin that on anything but bad luck.

So, out of the seven identified, five served DL stints that seem related to the increased workload, and Kennedy, Carmona and Gorzelanny endured nightmarish seasons. Jimenez was really the only one to come out unscathed, though Gallardo’s health issues certainly seem unrelated.

With the rule of 30 in mind, let’s take a look at a preliminary list of young starters who fall under the “Verducci Effect” for 2009. For the purposes of this list, I excluded pitchers who missed all of 2007 due to injury (such as Liriano), and included only those pitchers who will be 25 or younger on opening day 2009. I wanted to compile a list of guys pitching both seasons, who saw a big jump in IP from ’07 to ’08.

There is also some debate as to how much minor league innings should be “weighed” in the equation. There are some who feel that minor league frames are not as high stress as major league innings, but I have decided to count them as equal here.

Dana Eveland (age 25), +151.1 IP

Eveland tossed just 37.2 innings in 2007 while in the D-Backs’ minor league system, as he dealt with a finger injury. The hefty lefty appeared to tire down the stretch, as he surrendered a .311/.379/.468 line after the all-star break.

Gregory Reynolds
(23), +74.2 IP

Also known as “the guy picked before Evan Longoria“, this Stanford product already hit the minor league DL with a shoulder impingement in July.

Gregory Smith (24, soon 25), +74.1 IP

There are already plenty of reasons to expect this LSU product to trend downward next season, and the big increase in innings won’t help.

Charlie Morton (25), +74 IP

Jon Lester (25), +74 IP

Lester is admittedly a unique case, and it’s hard to say whether or not he faces the same injury risk as some of these other guys or not. For what it’s worth, Lester was sitting 90-91 MPH with his fastball in the early months of the season, but was firing 94 MPH bullets by the time September rolled around.

Cole Hamels (24), +72.1 IP

Hamels was no stranger to injury coming up through the Phillies’ farm system, and a whopping 35 postseason innings gave him a combined 262.1 frames tossed during the 2008 season. He’s incredibly gifted, but his health does bear watching.

Chad Billingsley (24), +65.1 IP

Chad beat the rule of 30 to the punch, as he unfortunately slipped on some ice and broke his leg outside of his Pennsylvania home (which begs the question, if you work in LA, why live in Pennsylvania?)

John Danks (23), +62.2 IP

Danks took some huge strides forward in 2008, but he’ll have to combat a big innings increase to maintain his status as one of the better starters in the American League.

Matt Harrison (23), +51 IP

Tim Lincecum (24), +49.2 IP

Giants manager Bruce Bochy did not seem to use much discretion with Lincecum in ’08, bringing him back into a game after a lengthy rain delay and allowing him to toss at least 110 pitches in 18 of his 33 starts. We’ve all heard the arguments of Lincecum’s “rubber arm” and freakishness, but Tim racked up the highest Pitcher Abuse Points score by a wide margin, and accumulated such a lofty workload for a cellar-dweller. From a cost/benefit standpoint, was it really worth pushing the guy so hard?

Mike Pelfrey (24, soon 25), +48 IP

Pelfrey improved his control in ’08 (2.87 BB/9), though the 6-7 righty continued to post finesse-type strikeout numbers (4.93 per nine innings). Is a fastball-centric pitcher like Pelfrey (81.2% usage), who rarely snaps off a slider or a curve, less likely to feel the effects of a big increase in innings? Thoughts?

Peter will have more on Pelfrey in the coming days.

Clayton Kershaw (20, soon 21), +47 IP

The Dodgers have tried to be careful with their big southpaw who comes equipped with mid-90’s gas and a devastating slow curve, but Kershaw still crossed the innings threshold by a decent margin. Considering his age and enormous importance to the franchise, expect Kershaw to be kept on a pretty strict innings limit in 2009.

Jair Jurrjens (22, soon 23), +45 IP

Jurrjens was solid for Atlanta this past season. He did have some shoulder issues in the minors, however, and tossed nearly 190 frames in 2008.

Matt Garza (25), +38.1 IP

Garza’s 25 postseason innings pushed him into Verducci territory.

Brandon Morrow (24), +32 IP

Because he was strangely pigeonholed in the bullpen for the better part of two seasons, this 2006 first-rounder has not been given the opportunity to gradually build up his arm strength in the minors. The Mariners began to transition Morrow into a starter last season, and new management seems to be going ahead with the plan. If Morrow begins the season in the rotation, he is going to soar past the 95.1 innings he threw in 2008. This situation calls to mind the Joba Chamberlain conundrum from last season. Of course, none of this would be an issue had Morrow been given the development time and innings necessary to incrementally increase his workload.

That’s the list: 15 in all. It’s important to point out that this is just one piece of evidence to take into account when evaluating a starter’s expected level of performance in the coming season. This is not a hard and fast rule; there are exceptions. However, it is an interesting and useful tool, as the risk of injury does seem to climb as a young starter gets beyond that 30 inning rule. By no means should you shy away from some of the top-tier performers on this list. Just keep in mind that their respective workloads did increase greatly, and it wouldn’t be unprecedented if injury or attrition set in for some of these guys in 2009.

Entering the 2008 season, Twins outfielder Denard Span was considered a mid-range prospect who never made good on his lofty draft status. The 20th overall pick on the 2002 amateur draft, Span was an all-state wide receiver as well as a baseball star in high school. In their preview of the ’02 draft, Baseball America rated Span as possessing 70 speed on the 20-to-80 scouting scale and remarked that, “it’s easy to look at him and dream of Kenny Lofton.” The 6-0, 205 pound lefty was supposed to become a sparkplug for the Twinkies, working the count and then wreaking havoc on the base paths.

However, despite all of the accolades, Span’s stats rarely matched his glowing scouting reports. Span moved rather slowly through Minnesota’s system and rarely got the ball out of the infield, barely slugging above .300 between Rookie Ball and the Low-A Midwest League between 2003 and 2004. 2005 brought with it some promise, as the Florida native hit .339/.410/.403 in the High-A Florida State League and .285/.355/.345 upon earning a promotion to the AA Eastern League, but his momentum was once again stunted upon returning to Double-A New Britain in 2006 (.285/.340/.349).

Span was bumped up to AAA Rochester in 2007, which would end up being the lowest point in his career. Span batted just .267/.323/.355, without working the count (7.6 BB%) or helping matters on the bases (64 SB% in 39 attempts). Following his lackluster campaign, both Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus soured on Span. BA rated him as just the fourth best center field prospect in the Twins’ system, while BP commented that “there is not much reason to believe he can be more than an extra outfielder.” At the time, it was hard to argue with either of those pronouncements. After all, Span was just a career .282/.349/.347 hitter, with average plate discipline and a propensity for being called out on the base paths (66.2 SB%).

Just when it seemed as though Span would be regarded as an exorbitantly-priced version of Lew Ford, he suddenly started to hit like a Lofton proxy. After a red-hot start at Rochester (14.3 BB%, .915 OPS in 156 AB), Span found himself seeing regular playing time for the Twins in the absence of Michael Cuddyer. In 411 PA, Span hit .294/.387/.432, posting a .364 wOBA and a 1.73 WPA/LI that paced all Minnesota outfielders. Though Span’s huge 25.7 line drive rate figures to fall, his .342 BABIP wasn’t excessively high.

Ordinarily, one might regard Span’s season as a blip, a flash in the pan. How often does a career disappointment suddenly start raking in the majors? However, there are some reasons to think that Span made some legitimate improvements in his game this past season. He drew walks at a 12.6% clip for the Twinkies while keeping his K rate in check (17.3%). His contact rate was a healthy 88.7%, and he almost never strayed from the strike zone, with an OSwing% of just 16.7%. That was the 10th-lowest figure among batters with at least 400 PA. Span’s stolen base prowess improved somewhat, at least to the point where he wasn’t harming his team (using the .22 run value for a SB and the -.38 value for a CS, Span’s 18/25 season came out to a net positive of 1.3 runs).

It’s not that uncommon for a player to experience a single-season hike in batting average or power, but it’s far more rare for a batter to show much-improved plate patience and then give all of those gains back the following year. Span’s increased walk rate and very low O-Swing% paint the picture of a hitter who refined his control of the strike zone and took a more mature approach with him to the batter’s box. Span might not be a star in the making, but as a high-OBP player with some speed, he could be a nice contributor to both the Twins and fantasy owners.

Great things were expected of Gavin Floyd when the Philadelphia Phillies popped him with the fourth overall selection in the 2001 amateur draft. A strapping 6-5, 230 pounder, Floyd showcased mid-90’s heat while dominating the competition at Mount Saint Joseph High in Baltimore.

Floyd performed fairly well as he moved up the organizational ladder, punching out about seven batters per nine innings and issuing around 3 BB/9. However, he failed to impress in three different trials with the Phillies from 2004 to 2006. In 108.2 combined innings, Floyd allowed 90 runs and 20 home runs, and he appeared to be stagnating at AAA as well. He posted a grisly 6.36 RA at Scranton during that three-year period, with 7.1 K/9 and 4 BB/9.

The Phillies jumped at the opportunity to convert the club’s disappointing prospect into a proven and productive commodity, shipping Floyd and southpaw Gio Gonzalez to the Chicago White Sox for right-hander Freddy Garcia in December of 2006.

Neither team got much of a major-league return on the trade in 2007, as Garcia’s shoulder gave out and Floyd posted a 5.27 ERA in 70 innings for the White Sox, serving up an incredible 17 long balls. However, 2008 brought much improved results for the Sox and Floyd, as the big righty tossed 206.1 frames, posting a 3.84 ERA and 17 wins. So, has the soon-to-be 26 year-old finally broken out, making good on those lofty expectations that led to a $4.2 million bonus from the Fightin’ Phils back in ’01?

Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons to think that Floyd’s 2008 campaign was more the product of good fortune than great pitching. Floyd’s ERA was a shiny 3.84, but he surrendered 19 unearned runs- pitchers bear some responsibility for those tallies as well. His strikeout rate was pretty ordinary, as he punched out 6.32 batters per nine innings, while serving out 3.05 free passes per nine. With a 2.07 K/BB ratio that was actually below the 2.12 AL average, Floyd’s Fielding Independent ERA (FIP) was a mundane 4.77. The 0.93 run difference between his ERA and FIP was the fifth-largest among all starters. Floyd’s .268 BABIP is going to rise, and with it, so will his ERA.

While Floyd’s 91 MPH heater, mid-80’s slider, high-70’s curve and low-80’s change worked pretty well against right-handed batters (.226/.279/.380), he continued to surrendered hits aplenty to southpaws (.259/.340/.485). In his major league career, Gavin has been pummeled by lefties to the tune of a .280/.364/.515 line. Floyd’s diverse repertoire (a five-pitch mix when you include his four-seam fastball and sinker) gives him plenty of weapons to go after righties, with a couple of different breaking balls at his disposal. However, those breakers don’t work near as well moving down and in to lefties, and Floyd has always been reticent to throw his changeup (6 percent of the time during his career).

In addition to his issues with left-handers, there’s also the matter of Floyd being a flyball pitcher (41.2 GB% in ’08) in a park that harshly penalizes such tendencies. According to the 2009 Bill James Handbook, U.S. Cellular Field has increased HR production by 28 percent over the past three seasons. Even with a league average HR/FB rate last season (11.8%), Floyd coughed up 30 long balls, or 1.31 per nine innings. Flyball pitcher + The Cell = fireworks.

Floyd’s prospect pedigree, superficial improvement in ERA and big win total might trick some people into believing that he has taken major strides toward becoming an ace-level starter. However, there just isn’t any evidence to suggest that’s really the case. Floyd is worth selecting in the later portion of most drafts, but don’t be the guy that takes him really high and then spends the season wondering why his ERA went up by a run.

With veteran Trevor Hoffman possibly ending his 16-year relationship with the San Diego Padres, the familiar late-game tune of AC/DC’s “Hell’s Bells” may no longer blare through the speakers at Petco Park. However, another Bell might step into the all-time save leader’s role: Heath Bell (may I suggest Metallica’s “For Whom The Bell Tolls”?) The 31 year-old had to wait an awfully long time to get his shot in the majors, but he has done excellent work for the Fathers over the past two seasons.

Bell was originally selected by the Tampa Bay (then) Devil Rays in the 69th round of the 1997 draft. Suffice it to say, the 1583rd pick in the draft was not considered much of a prospect at the time. The hefty right-hander never signed on the dotted line with Tampa, and he went undrafted the following June. Bell was eventually scooped up by the New York Mets.

Despite his lack of scouting support, Bell often dominated in the minor leagues. In 468.1 frames, he whiffed 10.4 batters per nine innings, while issuing a solid 2.5 BB/9. Despite the more than 4-to-1 K/BB ratio, the 6-3, 240 pounder did not make his Queens debut until 2004, at the age of 26. In 24.1 innings for the Mets that season, Bell struck out 27 and surrendered 6 free passes.

The next two seasons, Bell would dominate the International League while shuttling back and forth between Norfolk and New York. His peripherals were excellent (78/24 K/BB in 83.2 combined innings with the Mets), but Bell was the recipient of some insanely poor luck on balls put in play: his BABIP was .374 in 2005 and an astronomical .394 in 2006. With every hitter turning into Ted Williams when the ball was put in play, Bell’s ERA was well over five during ’05 and ’06.

Apparently feeling that Bell was lousy as opposed to unlucky, the Mets shipped Heath (along with lefty Royce Ring) to the Padres for Jon Adkins and Ben Johnson following the 2006 season.

Finally liberated, Bell would post one of the better relief seasons in the game in 2007. Shouldering a very heavy workload (appearing in 81 games and tossing 93.2 innings), Bell posted a 2.50 Fielding Independent ERA (FIP). Using a mid-90’s heater and a low 80’s slider, Bell punched out 9.8 batters per nine innings and walked 2.88. Bell led all relievers in innings pitched and appeared in the 6th-most games. His 3.47 WPA ranked 6th among all relievers, sandwiched between Joakim Soria and newly-minted Met Francisco Rodriguez.

Bell’s 2008 season wasn’t as dominant, though he still turned in another quality campaign. With 8.19 K/9 and 3.23 BB/9, Bell posted a 3.34 FIP. His fastball usage increased from 64% to 72%, but the offering lost over a tick in terms of speed (down to 93.4 MPH). His Contact% increased from 75.4% in ’07 to 79.5% in ’08, suggesting that his stuff was down a bit compared to his crazy 2007 season.

After his frequent usage in 2007 and more heavy lifting during the first half of the ’08 season (46 G, 50.1 IP during the first half), Bell seemed to tire down the stretch. After posting a 42/13 K/BB ratio before the All-Star break, the Oceanside, California native struggled with his control late in the season (29/15 K/BB, 19 R in 27.2 IP during the second half). Bell’s heater peaked at 94.4 MPH during June, but he was down to 92.3 MPH by September.

Take a look at Bell’s pitch F/X data from 2007 compared to 2008:

2007

Fastball: -4.3 X, 9.36 Z
Slider: 5.34 X, -2.69 Z

2008

Fastball: -1.32 X, 9.44 Z
Slider: 4.22 X, -1.91 Z

(X is horizontal movement. A negative X number means that the pitch is moving in toward a right-handed hitter, while a positive X means that the pitch is moving away from a righty hitter (in to a lefty). Z is vertical movement- the lower the Z number, the more the pitch “drops” in the strike zone.)

In addition to a drop in speed, Bell’s fastball lost about 3 inches of horizontal movement, meaning the pitch was not tailing in on right-handers nearly as much. His slider also wasn’t quite as sharp, with less break away from righties and less “tilt” down in the zone. Perhaps it was just a blip on the radar or the product of inherently small samples when dealing with relievers, but Bell went from stifling righties in ’07 (.157/.216/.203) to giving up a good deal of extra base hits against them in 2008 (.254/.307/.435).

Bell may well be in line to take over for Hoffman in San Diego, and he has produced one otherworldly season followed by another impressive showing in 2008. However, there are some danger signs here: Bell has tossed a combined 171.2 innings over the past two seasons, as strenuous a workload as any reliever has faced. His strikeout rate took a pretty large dip, down about 1.6 per nine innings, and his fastball lost both speed and movement. Perhaps an offseason of rest will help abate some of these trends, but it seems possible that Bell’s work over the past two years will go down as the highlight of his career.

As is, Bell is still a pretty good reliever. Just don’t expect the 2007 version to come trotting out of that bullpen gate, no matter what tune he settles on as his ninth-inning ditty.