HPAABOTRS
Among the peccadilloes and eccentricities that we’re willing to confess to in this forum, perhaps the most embarrassing is our continuing thirst for 80’s synthpop, which we were too old for even the first time around. The sillier and stupider the better, as far as we’re concerned: Human League, Soft Cell, Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark, Human League, A Flock of Seagulls, Men Without Hats, and of course post-Vince Clarke Depeche Mode, goth-synth titans so dumb they make Ozzy Osbourne look like Harold Bloom. (Come to think of it: Have you seen Oz lately? Even with the makeover, he does look kind of like Harold Bloom, who’s looked pretty much the same for the last 40 years.)
We feed our synthpop jones primarily via (unsolicited and uncompensated endorsement coming up) the Underground 80s channel on Soma FM, which is internet-only, commercial-free, listener-supported streaming radio. DJ Rusty Hodge really knows his stuff, so in addition to the aforementioned synthpop gods, we get (for example) Vicious Pink, Kissing the Pink (different band, apparently), Kon Kan, SSQ, Experimental Products, Blancmange, and Book of Love. These are essentially fungible groups who sound exactly the same: boxy primitive-drum-machine beats, two-finger analog-synth riffs, and a collection of Bowie imitators, male and female (or, just possibly, the same one guy, perhaps Bowie himself) handling vocals on top, with the lyrics what you’d expect from Brits who left school at 15 or (if it happens to be Krautsynth) people for whom English is a second language. We dote on this stuff, but always find ourselves saying: who are these guys?
We mention this now because we find ourselves in a similar position in Fantasyland. Every other night, it seems, some starting pitcher whose name either means nothing to us or rings only the faintest bell gets summoned from the minors for a start—sometimes just for the nonce, more often to join the rotation when someone else craters. When we see these puzzling names on the schedule, we check the guys out via the usual sources, and while the contents of their arsenals differ widely, the bottom line for the experts always seems to be the same: whether a soft-tossing lefty or a hard-throwing righty, the pitcher in question always figures to wind up as a 4th or 5th starter. Fangraphs trails Baseball Prospectus in the all-important ridiculous-acronym category, so here’s our contribution to catch-up: let’s call these pitchers, collectively, HPAABOTRS, which is pronounced “HIPAA bothers” (which in certain respects it does) and stands for “He projects as a back-of-the-rotation starter.”
Anyway: the pitchers in question make their starts, we shun them, someone else grabs them, and they often do great: Taylor Jungmann, Justin Nicolino, Cody Anderson, just in the past week or so. Some of our readers, we recognize, may have dossiers on these guys already, and know enough about them to use Tyler Cravy but avoid Tyler Wagner. If you’re such a person, we salute you. We’re not, though, and it seemed to us, anecdotally, as if this group of pitchers is doing quite well overall—well enough so that you might want to grab every one of them for their first start. So we decided to check it out: If you just used every relatively obscure starter making his major-league debut, how would you do?
The answer: you’d do okay. We decided to look at every pitcher this season who (1) was making his MLB debut (2) as a starter, (3) wasn’t on a major-league opening-day roster, and (4) isn’t listed among Fangraphs’ Top-200 Prospects for the season [ because you don’t have to know much to grab Matt Wisler when he comes up]. The results: 11 pitchers as of Tuesday evening, including Cody Anderson, Justin Nicolino, Taylor Jungmann, Joe Ross, Jon Moscot, Tyler Cravy, Mike Montgomery, Tyler Wagner, Christopher Berk, Mike Wright, and Tim Cooney. The outcome: 64 2/3, 61 H, 17 BB, 22 ER, 42 K, 3.06 ERA, 1.206 WHIP, 3 W, 4 L, 6 QS. In other words, better overall than you’d do with an average major-league starter. The low 2.47 K/W ratio is of course dismaying, but what did you expect? The reason these guys aren’t elite prospects that everyone knows about is that they can’t blow hitters away, and thus don’t impress scouts and sabermetricians as much.
But maybe this small sample is too flattering. How did similar guys do last year? We added the requirement that the debut not occur after August 31st, when the bar presumably gets lower. The results weren’t as good, but were definitely congruent. Using Fangraphs’ 2014 Top-100 Prospects (no Top 200 last year), augmented by BP’s similarly-sized group, to eliminate the too-obvious, we wound up with 26 pitchers: Rudy Owens, Red Patterson, Drew VerHagen, Dallas Beeler, Marco Gonzalez, Jake Buchanan, Andrew Chafin, Buck Farmer, Kyle Ryan, Anthony Ranaudo, Yohan Flande, Christian Bergman, Robbie Ray, Yohan Pino, Chase Whitley, Scott Carroll, Anthony DeSclafani, Tsuyoshi Wada, Trevor May, Tyler Matzek, Jacob deGrom, David Buchanan, Odrisamer Despaigne, Jesse Hahn, Kyle Hendricks, Chase Anderson. (It speaks tragic volumes about the baseball half-life that about a third of those names are meaningless for 2015, but let’s shed a tear and move on.) The numbers: 141 2/3 IP, 129 H, 51 BB, 96 K, 3.49 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 9 W, 8 L, 10 QS. Still a bit better overall than you’d do with an average MLB starter; certainly no worse. You’d pay a buck for that package of stats from a single player in the pre-season draft, right?
We don’t know what to do with this information. Are we really going to take a flier on the next guy who fits this model? That would be 27-year-old 6-season minor-leaguer Josh Smith, pitching for Cincinnati against Pittsburgh last night—that is, tonight, because we’re writing this on Tuesday afternoon, and agonizing over this very question as we do. How obscure is Smith? Brad Johnson, whose job consists of knowing this kind of stuff, wrote Tuesday in Fangraphs that he is flummoxed by Smith, about whom, he says, “we know so little.” At this point, with decent starting pitching the difference for us between immortality and ignominy, we’re probably so desperate that we’d try whoever it is who’s replacing the unfortunate Jon Moscot in the Reds’ rotation—not just Smith, but even Depeche Mode, Ozzy Osbourne, or Harold Bloom.
Nope–we couldn’t quite do it. We got Smith in our daily-transaction H2H league, then didn’t activate him. Back tomorrow with a report. (Wednesday morning update: Our uncharacteristic prudence was fortunate. Smith produced 3 IP, 3 H, 6 W, 4 ER, 3K, no decision.)
The Birchwood Brothers are two guys with the improbable surname of Smirlock. Michael, the younger brother, brings his skills as a former Professor of Economics to bear on baseball statistics. Dan, the older brother, brings his skills as a former college English professor and recently-retired lawyer to bear on his brother's delphic mutterings. They seek to delight and instruct. They tweet when the spirit moves them @birchwoodbroth2.
Great read as ever.
Post-Vince Clarke Depeche Mode sucks old sweaty homeless arse, but have you checked out his first project after leaving, namely Yazoo (“Yaz”, in ‘Murica, despite it having nothing to do with baseball)? Worth a listen. Oh, and you listed Human League twice. Don’t you want them, baby?
We’re down with Yaz (we’re Yanks). Likewise the Assembly, Clarke’s next failed project, with Feargal Sharkey. How a guy that burned through three collaborations in about a year kept the next one going for 20+ years is something we can’t figure out.
None of those bands are embarrassing (except Men Without Hats, maybe), and I’m a bit baffled as to why you consider them “silly and stupid”? I hope this is not a reflection on your abilities analyzing fantasy baseball…
I would argue that A Flock of Seagulls, in hindsight, are automatically silly due to their ridiculous hairstyles. Orchestra Maneuvers in the Dark is a great band though!
No love for Bears in Heaven?
True story: my first concert was Kissing The Pink, who opened for the Police.
probably when the Birchwood Brothers were born.
also, being embarrassed by synth-pop (which is one of my favorite genre’s by the way) represents an older, rockist line of thinking which tends wield the bogeyman of “authenticity” as the sine qua non of popular music. Such outdated attitudes are the equivalent of valuing the R-B-I.
Put another way, Safety Dance is a really amazing song.
Always appreciate your comments, U.S. We like to think of ourselves as non-rockist, which compared to other guys our age we probably are, and as to which debate see Bob Stanley’s book Yeah Yeah Yeah (good if interminable read) and Christgau’s review thereof on B&N.
I do believe this is the first and last time I’ll see Harold Bloom referenced on fangraphs (though I probably shouldn’t count out Cistulli)
Proclaiming a love for post-Vince DM (but where do you stand on post-Alan?!) goes a long way in my book. All previous complaints about you are forgiven. I’m not even kidding.
Never entirely got what Wilder was bringing to DM. Don’t dislike him, just don’t get his value-added in the studio. Always preferred Broken Frame to any of the 80s stuff with Wilder anyway. DM has been way more beatwise since he left, which is great, but that’s probably due to the ascendancy of EDM and the sophistication of digital production vis-à-vis 25 or 30 years ago rather than to Wilder’s departure.
Well, that’s what I’d call an idiosyncratic opinion – regarding A Broken Frame – though quite respectable. I can understand it, as the good songs there are pretty unique in the DM body. It’s just that, amongst those good songs, there are a couple like “A Photograph of You,” which I just can’t get behind.
Yeah, post-Wilder seems to parallel the growth of techno, as a lot of the direction of the sound is determined by Martin, his synth collection, and him getting way into techno in the late ’90s.
Interesting content.
Long before Skrillex rolled out his “whomp, whomp, whomp”, there was Heaven 17…..
General complaint of the variety I don’t often make. This article was absolutely absurdly written. You give it an incomprehensible, made up acronym of a title, then you spend the entire first 2 paragraphs talking about 80s bands I’ve never heard of. Wouldn’t be any better if I HAD heard of them. The reader needs to know early on what the damn article is about in order to decide whether or not its worth reading. If you’re going to engage in random ramblings for the first two paragraphs then at least give the article a title that makes it clear what the article will be about. This was ridiculous. For the love of god please give me some indication in the first paragraph as to whether this article is worth reading by telling me what it’s about, its not that hard, all you need to do is lead with…
I don’t care if you want to engage in random commentary on 80s bands, I really don’t, but please do it after you’ve told me what the article is about or at least put something into your first paragraph discussion of 80s bands to give me a hint. This is just terrible writing and it wastes everyone’s time.