Archive for Garrett Richards

MASH Report 9/19/16

The Mets continue to find new ways of being “Amazin’,” albeit this reference is to Jacob deGrom and his bothersome elbow. Recall he has TJS in 2010, and for whatever reason scar tissue has enveloped parts of his elbow, especially around the ulnar nerve. Recall from your anatomy classes that the ulnar nerve is also the “funny bone.” About as poorly named as “Microsoft Works.” Anyway, also recall how that feels when you hit that nerve….try throwing a baseball and hitting your spots with your elbow feeling that way. Point being is that he is most likely done for the year. Surgery, albeit minor, is required to clean the elbow up of scar tissue. No hesitations as of now for 2017.

Let’s get caught up with our friend Stephen Strasburg, shall we?

Read the rest of this entry »


The Pitcher vs. The Thrower: A Garrett Richards Tale

In March, Jeff Sullivan wrote a fantastic article about Garrett Richards. Jeff praised his increased strikeout rate from 2014, but more importantly, he pointed out the biggest key to Richards’ improvement: Hitters could no longer pull the ball in the air against him. In 2014, “Richards started to make sense. He’s become one of the easiest pitchers in baseball to explain.”

Unfortunately, that progression vanished completely in 2015, and Richards reverted back into a mystery. He’s back to being one of those frustrating pitchers who possesses great stuff, but can’t seem to put it all together. He’s the kind of guy who passes the eye test, but doesn’t produce the numbers to match it. He just seems like he should be better than he is. So, why isn’t he?

The home-run ball isn’t a huge problem in general for Richards in his professional career. Throughout his six pro seasons, he’s been a little better than league-average in that department, from A-ball to the majors. However, in 2014, he posted a truly elite 0.27 HR/9 rate, and opposing hitters slugged a league-worst (or best, if you’re Richards) .261 against him.

Read the rest of this entry »


The Angels Rotation: Garrett Richards and Downside

It’s time for our Depth Chart Discussions to begin. In an effort to suss out every team, we’ve divided them into four parts (infield, outfield, bullpen, and rotation) and will begin breaking them down for you over the next few weeks. You can find them gathered here.

Thanks in large part to a breakout performance from Garrett Richards, the 2014 Angels rotation was around league average according to WAR, which is quite a bit better than they were expected to perform. Unfortunately, Richards went down with a knee injury in August. How quickly he can return to the mound and how healthy he is when gets there will be a huge part of how good this staff is this year. Past Richards, the Angels have three fairly reliable if unexciting pitchers projected to throw 190-ish innings. Just from writing up a few other teams for our depth chart discussions, I can tell you that’s not a luxury too many other teams have. So despite Richards’ absence early in the year, this staff is more settled than most. Read the rest of this entry »


Mock Draft Review and Best of the Rest

Our Mock Draft is complete.

Team Schwartz/rounds drafted:

C: Travis d’Arnaud/17 1B: Victor Martinez/4 2B: Arismendy Alcantara/18 3B: Josh Donaldson/3 SS: Hanley Ramirez/2 MI: Jean Segura/19 CI: Prince Fielder/6 OF: Mike Trout/1; Mookie Betts/7; Ryan Zimmerman/10; A.J. Pollock/14; Steven Souza/20; Carl Crawford/24 U: Pedro Alvarez/21

Read the rest of this entry »


Pitch Arsenal Score Part Deux

This week, Eno presented Pitch Arsenal scores. There were a sundry of impactful responses which will result in a more comprehensive score in the future, such as incorporating pitch usage; a dominating pitch used more should be scored higher than a pitch with the same results that is used less.

The other clear requirement is associating weight to the outcomes in which Eno evaluated: whiff per swings and grounder to fly ratios. That is all this post will get at. It sounds like follow-up scores may incorporate pop-up% and zone% as well. Again, we are looking for undervalued pitchers, but if we want to get more descriptive (simply presenting the results from last year), we could look at HR/FB and LD/BIP on each pitch type as well.

I did something similar in the past, and there are different approaches, but here goes.

Using BP’s PITCHf/x Leaderboard (1oo-pitch qualifier) I first found each pitch type’s Whiff/Swing and GB/FB z-score. I then weighed each z-score by swinging-strike’s (.62) and GB/FB’s (.27) average correlation to ERA, SIERA and xFIP for all pitchers over 70 innings pitched (my lazy attempt to omit relievers). What is not incorporated and should be in the future, is differentiating weights for each pitch type. For example, groundball induction is a more important requirement for Sinkers; Sliders and Change-ups should induce more whiffs as we know from these Pitch Type Benchmarks.

The seven pitch types incorporated are Fourseamers, Sinkers, Cutters, Curves, Sliders, Change-ups and Splitters. For Trevor Bauer‘s Screwball and R.A. Dickey’s Knuckleball, I went to Brooks Baseball’s player cards and used their sabermetric outcome z-scores for these two pitch types and combined the weighted z-score to the rest of their repertoire score.

The list will be distinguishable from Eno’s initial list based on the weights, but the names within each cluster will look similar.

When you get Felix Hernandez and Corey Kluber in the top 5 and Kevin Correia dead last, you know we got it right:

Notes:

  • Pitchers with outcomes missing threw less than 70 IP.
  • Pitch types were included only if pitches were thrown 100+ times. For example, Trevor Cahill wound up at #8 on this list. He has excellent breaking and off-speed pitches (all 1+ standard deviations more than average from a whiff/swing perspective), but his Fourseam is awful, and BP’s PITCHf/x leaderboard did not present his Fourseam outcomes based on a sub-100 pitch count as a starting pitcher so it was not included in his full arsenal/repertoire score.

Results:

Think the Indians aren’t looking on the pitch-outcome level? They have 5 pitchers in the top 55 Repertoire Scores: Carlos Carrasco and Corey Kluber are numbers 3 and 4 respectively! Newcomer Gavin Floyd is #15 on the list thanks to great breaking balls. Danny Salazar is #43 and his per-pitch outcomes were even better coming into 2014. T.J. House is the real deal at #54. And not far off is Trevor Bauer at #75 overall.

I cannot not mention that the Mets have two guys in the top 21: Zack Wheeler (#9) and Jacob deGrom #21). Harvey if healthy should join them.

As it relates to Cahill, for some value-add, I highlighted (red/green) those .50 more or less standard deviations from the mean in SwStr% and GB/FB, but also the three “luck” categories: LOB%, HR/FB and of course BABIP. Cahill ranks well in both SwStr% and GB/FB and was also relatively unlucky when it came to his BABIP and LOB% (about 65 points and 9% respectively from his career average). Cahill is a deep-league…even standard-league asset with some returned control and an ERA closer to expected ERAs below 4.00. I am thinking the magical-mystery-kind age 27 season for Cahill.

Attend to the luck stats. Carlos Martinez has one of the best repertoire scores yet had a 4.03 ERA in part due to a .333 BABIP. His xFIP (3.45) and SIERA (3.54) in conjunction with the #1 overall arsenal score should ensure he is significantly better next year.

The list verifies breakouts: Carlos Carrasco, Garrett Richards, Yordano Ventura and Tyson Ross (all top15). Ross has a devastating Slider (8th best; 100-pitch qualifier) with a solid Change from a whiff/swing perspective, but he induces a ton of grounders with his Change and Sinker (both have top 11 GB/FB rates).

The list also provides hope for Justin Masterson who wound up at #7 on the list with 2.72 Sinker score and .74 Slider score. That 2.72 Sinker score out-summed 205 other full repertoire scores, but again keep in mind that his Sinker whiff/swing of 22.88% might be 3 standard deviations better than the average Sinker whiff/swing, but that rate is under the average whiff/swing rate for Curves, Sliders, Change-ups and Splitters. This is why it is important to differentiate weights for each pitch type.

If there is a pitcher’s Repertoire score that baffles you, check out the “RepScores” tab to see which pitches were omitted and the individual pitch-type z-scores and weights under the “zWh/Sw” and “wzWh/Sw” columns. Each pitch-type score and repertoire score is in the last column, titled “Wh/Sw_Gb/Fb_Scr.”

Back to the actual value of the content though – we are looking for interesting names and patterns, which I have highlighted in Red or Yellow based on the content below:

  • Trevor Cahill interests me if he never uses his Fourseamer again and can induce more grounders with his Sinker. Cahill has a nice Cutter/Slider that he used toward the end of last year too. There is more swing and miss to his game.
  • Dan Straily and the Sinker Pattern: Dan Straily might not have a spot in the Cubs rotation at this point, but he has a solid Slider and induces a surprising number of pop-ups. If he can keep his HR/FB ratio down (probably more of an issue in Wrigley than the Coliseum though) and have better luck in the left-on-base department, he could become effective again. His ranking in this list though is because of an elevated Sinker value (similar to Masterson). Look out for the Sinker and take the associated rankings with a handful of salt.
  • James Paxton: By name and the Mariners un-willingness to move him, you know that he is good. It’s nice that our list backs him up. While his expected ERAs were 3.50+ (about 50 points higher than his 3.04 actual ERA), he should get even better; mainly his Change-ups, which should induce more whiffs. Even if we don’t see an impressive strikeout rate next year, I think he will be able to prevent hard contact with his CCC (Change-Curve-Cutter) repertoire and Fastball velocity (17th at 95.51 MPH last year; 100-pitch qualifier).
  • Shane Greene: He’s no Max Scherzer, but the Tigers finagle themselves into another Yankees-Diamondbacks swap and again may have acquired the best piece. Another potent righty, Greene had the 10th best Slider Whiff/Swing rate and 5th best Cutter Whiff/Swing rate (enough velocity differential where they are distinguishable). Unlike Masterson and Straily, his Sinker does not inflate his repertoire score. Losing Rick Porcello hurts, but Shane Greene could be even better.
  • Jesse Hahn and Pitch Omissions: Similar to Masterson and Straily, Hahn’s repertoire score is inflated by his Sinker although he had a great Curve (31st best Whiff/Swing rate). His Slider and Change were omitted from his arsenal in this evaluation based on pitch-counts under 100. Both would impede on his overall score. Through this approach, Hahn’s Changeup would be valued at -.15, which would drag his repertoire score from 1.59 to 1.44. The Slider would be far worse, but he used it less than 30 times, so I won’t subtract from his overall score in case he decides to swap the pitch out altogether next year.
  • Wily Peralta. This is more about confirmation than highlighting a surprising name. Peralta won’t provide haughty strikeout rates, but his 18.4% rate from last year could jump a bit based on the per-pitch outcomes/more breaking-ball usage. In a future FanGraphs+ post, his release point consistency (within-game but especially game-to-game) will be highlighted, which could be a source of deception. While the Sinker does inflate his value some here (almost a standard deviation more whiff/swing than the average Sinker), it does its job inducing grounders. His Changeup and Slider are also .55+ standard deviations better than average at inducing whiffs.

Eno already emphasized Carlos Martinez and Carlos Carrasco – both have glorious peripherals within each pitch-type beyond their Fourseams. Every pitch of theirs outside the Fourseam induced 1.5 standard deviations more whiffs/swing than average!

Watch out for Danny Salazar who (by classification) introduced a devastating Changeup in September and should output value similar to or better than Carlos Carrasco based on a haughtier strikeout rate. Salazar was probably a luckier BABIP away from a 3.5 ERA last year. In fact, unsurprisingly, each Indians starter outside of Carrasco had a BABIP .5 standard deviations over the average (70IP qualifier).

Review:

  • Look for sleepers/surprises based on “Rep.Score” in column two of the embedded file as presented.
  • Check out the “RepScores” tab to see if any pitch-types were removed based on pitch-counts and keep pitch-type usage in mind (counts in the 5th column).
  • Remember, differentiating weights for each pitch type is not incorporated. Scroll to the right within the “RepScores” tab to view individual pitch-type scores as well as the complete repertoire/arsenal score. Watch for pitchers with Sinkers as their highest score. Sinkers whiff rates aren’t as impactful. Allen Webster has a great score, but it is inflated because of its Whiff/Swing rate. As mentioned above, the same holds true for Justin Masterson and Dan Straily among others.
  •  The Diamondbacks and Yankees won’t let the Tigers finagle themselves into another deal after Shane Greene enjoys success similar to the Scherzer application.
  • And finally, try to own the entire Indians rotation in your fantasy leagues.

2015 New York Mets: Commanding Attention

Last second I changed the title from “Having a Presence” to “Commanding Attention”. If I were to talk about the team as a whole, I would have had to go with “Having a Presence,” but I’m focusing on their rotation, and well…they command our attention…

It’s rough to be a Mets fan living in Minnesota. It’s rough being a Mets fan anywhere, but watching the Twins and their approach to 100 losses doesn’t help. Despite being only 6.5 games back from the 2nd Wild Card to date, I don’t think the Mets will have enough offense to sustain next year, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be fun to watch. There will be quite the trio that commands attention – or even a quartet with the assumption that Noah Syndergaard makes an impact. And with a quartet…who knows?!

Read the rest of this entry »


Pitcher Over/Under Performers

I wanted to highlight Pitcher over and under performers. Naturally, Mike Podhorzer has already done that and more concisely and eloquently than I ever could. In conjunction to what he did (ERA vs. SIERA within this year), I wanted to look at pitchers’ skills and luck relative to last year.

By “skills” I mean K%-BB%, combined Contact% and SwStr%, GB/FB and IFFB%. These columns are in green.

By “luck” I mean BABIP, LOB% and HR/FB. These are in some emotional shade of red.

I took all the 2014 vs. 2013 differentials and z-scored them. I summed them up and presented them under column 3 (“SKILL”) and column 4 (“LUCK”). In short, these are not their skill and luck scores for 2014, but their change relative to 2013…in relation to how much everyone else from this list changed (50 IP qualifier).

Read the rest of this entry »


Who Has Generated the Most Weak Contact This Year?

On Monday I touched on Tony Blengino’s presentation on contact management that he gave this past weekend at Saber Seminar in Boston. Tony measured the pitchers who were best able to manage contact by looking at HITf/x data, data to which us normal people have no access. But I theorized that something like sOPS+ (like ERA- but with OPS allowed) could be a replacement for the HITf/x data. I thought that sOPS+ might be able to tell us which guys are better at inducing weak contact and thus which guys can have an ERA that beats their ERA estimators.

When I say “tell us” I should clarify that could mean two different things. It’s the classic explanatory versus predictive problem. Yes, sOPS+ can explain why a pitcher’s ERA is lower than his ERA estimators in a given season, but, as it turns out, it can’t tell us whether he’ll be able to do so the next season. I spent some time last night looking at whether sOPS+ in year one correlated well with the gap between ERA and SIERA in year two. The answer is no. While the correlation was stronger than it was between ISO allowed (another weak contact indicator) and the ERA-SIERA gap, it was still far too small to be meaningful.

It’s obvious that things like sOPS+ and ISO allowed don’t stabilize quickly. And that should not come as a surprise given that we know certain batted ball data takes a long time to stabilize. That doesn’t mean it’s not a skill. It simply means you can’t look at any pitcher’s sOPS+ or ISO allowed in the offseason and rely on it too much in projecting them for the next season. But when I say you can’t look at “any” pitcher, I mean you can’t just look at any old pitcher. I do think there are some you can look at. Read the rest of this entry »


Fantasy Tools: The Baseball Prospect Book 2010

I just got back from a trip and took advantage of my airport time to do some fantasy baseball studying. In the dark ages, this might have meant purchasing a fantasy magazine but fortunately there are much better options available today. And much to my delight, the mailman brought my copy of John Sickels’ The Baseball Prospect Book 2010 right before I left.

Now the internet has made following prospects much easier than when Sickels started doing his book back in the mid 1990s. Our own Marc Hulet does excellent work listing the top 10 prospects for each organization. But I still find value in this book and it is the one prospect source I go back to time and time again, both before and during the season as well as in hindsight to see both how prospects were rated and how the scouting reports from the minors compare to the actual results in the majors.

Sickels does a nice job of combining both statistical analysis along with scouting reports to determine his grades for prospects. And one advantage that he has over many other analysts is that he goes to a bunch of games – both in the minors and top college programs. A lot of guys can quote you a top prospect’s numbers in the high minors but Sickels can tell you the improvements he made since he saw him in college.

For example, Sickels writes about 2009 Angels supplemental first-round pick Garrett Richards:

“I saw him pitch one Big 12 game where he was throwing 94-96 MPH fastballs, a plus slider, and a big-breaking curveball … and he still got clobbered because he couldn’t command his pitches.”

Now Richards pitched well in his rookie ball debut last year and combined with his high draft status, many analysts would be extremely bullish on him. But Sickels uses his college scouting (and numbers) to offer just a bit more caution that most in regards to Richards. And there are countless examples of this throughout the book.

In addition to his own scouting, Sickels has built up a strong network of scouts that he can trade information with regarding players he is unable to see in person. But before you dismiss him as someone who just regurgitates whatever information scouts give him, Sickels is not afraid to go against this information if it conflicts with what he sees in the numbers or what his gut tells him.

On Jonathan Galvez, a Padres prospect from the Dominican Republic who got a big bonus a few years back, Sickels notes: “some scouts were disappointed in him, criticizing his defensive play, particularly his arm strength, and raising questions about his work ethic.” But despite that Sickels concluded: “I still think he’s a very intriguing prospect.”

And yes, someone who has been doing this as long and as successfully as Sickels has is allowed (and is preferred) to use his gut or his instinct when evaluating players, so long as he is upfront about it in his analysis. As Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out, experts have a way of recognizing patterns in subconscious ways and it is a mistake to ignore those completely.

Sickels was using numbers to grade prospects long before most others were doing it. He uses OPS, Secondary Average (both of which he compares to league averages) and BABIP as his main offensive numbers. On the pitching side he uses K/BB, K/IP and H/IP. This year he also incorporated some FIP numbers into his analysis

The book contains prospect reports on 1,170 minor league players and is arranged alphabetically. But there is also a section that lists every prospect by team, so if you are only interested in finding out the details about guys in certain systems, you can do that, too.

It is great for both fantasy purposes and following the game as a whole. Sickels both writes and self publishes the book, which you can order here.

Which prospect sources do you use the most and find most reliable?