Boof Bonser Check-up
May 27th, 2008 by ubelmann
Where were preseason expectations for Boof?
First I'll note that the league ERA is 4.12, compared to 4.51 last year, so I'll adjust all ERA expectations down by 0.39, since no one was really anticipating this much of a dip in offense. (Though April run scoring this year (4.24 ERA) wasn't that much different than April run scoring last year (4.31 ERA), so I wouldn't be surprised to see run scoring increase as the weather heats up.)
4.21 -- Bill James
4.44 -- CHONE
4.44 -- Marcel
4.47 -- PECOTA
4.59 -- ZiPS
How has Boof performed so far this season?
4.31 FIP
4.55 xFIP
6.16 ERA
What's up with that ERA?
The biggest thing is that a ridiculous percentage of batters that have reached base have scored. 85 batters have reached and 47 have scored (42 of those have been earned.) In the first two years of his career, 398 batters reached and 158 of those scored (145 of those were earned.) So this year, 55% of batters reaching have scored whereas in the past 40% of batters reaching have scored.
If Boof was plugging along at a 40% rate of letting baserunners score, then he would have allowed only 34 runs so far (probably about 30 ER.) That would take his 6.16 ERA all the way down to a 4.40 ERA. Which, lo and behold, is almost exactly where we expected it to be at.
So Boof's allowed about 12 more earned runs than we could reasonably have expected so far. In some sense, that's a lot. More than one extra run per game! How awful!
In another sense, it's not a very significant number. If Boof had pitched 200 innings at a 4.55 ERA, he would have allowed about 101 earned runs. If he would have scattered 12 additional ER over those 200 innings, it would have raised his ERA to 5.09. That ain't great, but that's about where it was last year.
Shouldn't we expect bad pitchers to allow a higher percentage of their baserunners to score?
Sure. We should also expect bad pitchers to allow more baserunners in the first place, and so far Boof has allowed fewer baserunners per inning than his career average. If Boof has suddenly lost the ability to pitch with runners on base, it comes at a time where he's still pitching just as well--if not better--with no runners on base. You're certainly welcome to suggest that Boof has lost his nerve (or intestinal fortitude or whatever), but if we're only looking at his performance on the field, there's far from enough data to firmly suggest that possibility.
So what should we expect from Boof for the remainder of the season?
The same thing that we expected before the season started. Boof hasn't done anything that would make me think that--at the ripe old age of 26--he's done or somehow taken a significant step back. Maybe he's been unlucky, maybe he's just been in a slump, but he's been doing enough things well that I'm not really that worried about him. When mediocre pitchers go into a slump (or have bad luck or whatever) they look like awful pitchers, but sometimes making good decisions is about weathering the storm. It would be easy to abandon the good ship U.S.S. Bonser right now, but I'm not ready to board that dinghy just yet.
Would Boof be better off in the bullpen?
Well, if Boof moved to the bullpen, his rate statistics would be better. In that sense, Boof would be better in the bullpen.
Of course, I also think that Glen Perkins, Livan Hernandez, Scott Baker, Kevin Slowey, Nick Blackburn, and Francisco Liriano would be better in the bullpen if that's our criteria for improvement. Hell, Johan Santana would be a better pitcher out of the bullpen. It's easier to run a quarter of a mile than it is to run two miles, and it's easier to throw one inning than it is to throw eight innings. I'm not yet convinced that the Twins have five starting pitchers better than Boof Bonser. That could change, but I'm not seeing it just yet.



Rhubarb_Runner replied on May 27, 2008 at 7:21:39 am
If you've ever run a quarter mile, you wouldn't associate a word like "easier" with it!
Andrew replied on May 27, 2008 at 9:01:22 am
My buddy Rich is trying to convince me to run a 5K with him Saturday. I could do it and I could probably do pretty respectably, but the question is "Do I really want to?" On the one hand, it's only 20-30 minutes out of my life. On the other, I have to run 3 miles.
Algonad replied on May 27, 2008 at 9:15:33 am
Lots of women run in those 5k's. Lots of women that are in good shape. And most 5k's have some type of little party or celebration afterwards.
Andrew replied on May 27, 2008 at 9:58:45 am
The promise of a party is what convinced me to do it. As for the women, meh. I don't need anymore women in my life right now.
Dread Pirate Will Young replied on May 27, 2008 at 10:02:00 am
Listen to Algonad. Just find a nice little rear end to chase for 5K.
brianS replied on May 27, 2008 at 10:25:12 am
I could get behind that.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on May 27, 2008 at 10:03:12 am
I ran a 10K in college; my split for the first 2 miles was great, the last mile split was excellent, but in the interrim miles I was passed by women, children...it wasn't fun.
I did a 5K back in the early 90s here, and it was nice to check it off my bucket list (heh), but it also was more work than enjoyment.
Give me a 800m run anyday. Uh, when I'm in shape, that is.
Andrew replied on May 27, 2008 at 10:22:55 am
Give me a 800m run anyday
I like the 800m as well. My usual running "routine" is to run a mile as fast as I can and call it a day. Much longer than that and I get bored and cranky. The 800M is right up my alley - 2 or 3 minutes of balls-to-the-wall running then go do something else.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on May 27, 2008 at 10:55:40 am
exactly. on an oval track, it's short enough not to totally kill you, but long enough that some strategery is required.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 11:39:10 am
If you're running an 800 and it's easier than running a 400, you're not trying hard enough. (And yes, I've done both.)
Rhubarb_Runner replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:36:12 pm
you're not trying hard enough
I guess I can't argue with that. I guess when I say the 800m is easier, I'm talking mentally easier, not physically. We called our 400m sprinters "no-minds", because that's how you run it - you're put in a lane, and you run in that lane until you stumble over the finish line. The 800m has jockeying for position, drafting...much more mentally stimulating.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:49:31 pm
I think that's true to a certain extent, but we had some sprinters that would move up to the 800 from the 400 at the end of the season, and they ran it nearly like back-to-back 400's--and they generally beat the crap out of anyone else on the team who ran what might be considered a more cerebral race.
Algonad replied on May 27, 2008 at 10:39:43 am
I ran a 5k a few years ago and had a couple goals. Goal number 1 - nobody in jeans can beat me. Goal number 2 - nobody pushing a stroller can beat me.
In the last half mile, a guy pushing a stroller passed me. My wife tried to cheer me up by pointing out that it was one of those really expensive running strollers and he's got to be a pretty good runner to want to plunk down $500 on a stroller.
That didn't help too much.
socaltwinsfan replied on May 27, 2008 at 8:20:22 am
I think the writing is on the wall for Boof. Baker is going to be back soon and I don't see him in the bullpen. Perkins has been very good in his starts to date, Slowey just had his best start of the season, and Blackburn has pretty much been the Twins' best starter for the season to date, so that pretty much leaves Boof as the odd man out.
I just wonder who will go down to AAA from the bullpen. Bass just got lit up in his last outing and wasn't great before that but is out of options, and Korecky had that memorable extra-inning victory and has been decent in his other outings.
Jeff A replied on May 27, 2008 at 8:31:05 am
Yeah. I agree with ubelmann in that I'm not giving up on Bonser yet, and I still think he can be a decent back-of-the-rotation starter. Unless something changes before Baker comes back, though, I don't see how you justify pulling someone else out of the rotation and leaving Boof in.
Algonad replied on May 27, 2008 at 8:53:48 am
I don't see who else would go to the bullpen from the rotation. I guess Slowey is a possibility. Bonser has looked better in innings 2+ than he has in the first. For his career, his BAA is .319 for the first 15 pitches and .277 overall.
Andrew replied on May 27, 2008 at 10:26:24 am
Bonser has looked better in innings 2+ than he has in the first
So he has a case of the Radkes?
twayn replied on May 27, 2008 at 10:56:41 am
Livan has had a bit of first inning trouble this year as well. Of his 36 runs allowed, 10 of them have come in the first inning (28%).
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 11:38:01 am
I don't see who else would go to the bullpen from the rotation.
Just send Perkins back to AAA. Last in, first out.
Perkins' xFIP is barely better than Bonser's so far, and that's with a really low walk rate that I don't at all believe is going to hold up. It would be nice if it did, but it would also have been nice if Boof's 3.75 ERA after six starts would have held up.
I know he's the next big thing and all, but based on his track record, at best switching Perkins and Bonser is a lateral move. Bonser and Perkins are the sort of pitching prospects that wind up with unrealistic expectations attached to them (mostly because of the high strikeout rate with bad control--the high strikeout rate indicates good stuff, but they are going to be frustrating without the good control.) It's the unrealistic expectations that lead people to believe you can't trust young pitchers or whatever. Instead, you just can't trust rookie pitchers with that kind of track record to be "consistent." They are mediocre pitchers and at times they will look good and at times they will look awful.
Unless you're going to DFA Rincon or Crain, I don't really see the point in adding someone else to the bullpen. Those two have been the worst two pitchers in the bullpen and we have reasons to doubt each of them (Rincon's persistent post-suspension decline, and Crain's injury.)
Jeff A replied on May 27, 2008 at 11:45:51 am
You may well be right that Perkins will be no better than Bonser, but right now, he's pitching well and Bonser isn't. As a manager or a GM, you'd have a hard time explaining to Perkins or to the rest of the team why Bonser stays and Perkins goes.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 11:57:19 am
Having a better ERA doesn't mean that you're pitching better. Run prevention is not the same thing as pitching.
I would not have a hard time at all explaining to Perkins or to anyone else for that matter, why Perkins stays and Bonser goes. First, you tell Perkins that you like what you saw, but there's a currently a numbers crunch and he'll have to go back to Rochester, where I'd like to see him continue to improve his control. (His four major league starts don't erase his 5+ BB/9 rate that he's compiled in Rochester so far this year.) Then if the team needs an explanation about the move--which they shouldn't because their job is to play ball with the teammates I give them, not play fantasy GM--I tell them that Boof has had a bad month, but I'm confident the results will improve and that he's their teammate and they ought to have some faith in their teammate.
If Perkins thinks that he has nothing to learn in Rochester, then he's delusional and needs an attitude adjustment anyway.
Jeff A replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:04:47 pm
Run prevention is not the same thing as pitching.
I think I know what you mean, but if you phrase it that way, you most definitely will have a hard time explaining why Perkins goes and Bonser stays. To most people, including most players, run prevention is the whole idea behind pitching.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:16:36 pm
Run prevention is pitching plus defense. And over five starts, your ERA is going to depend on which particular lineups you faced, and what the weather was like on those days, and yes, some luck thrown in there.
For that matter, I should have added this to the original post. Since Bonser's ERA has shot from 3.75 to 6.16, he's faced the following teams:
Detroit (twice)
Boston
Texas
Toronto
Boston, Texas, and Detroit have the top three team OPS in the league. And against right-handed pitchers, Toronto has had a league average offense.
Once a pitcher lets go of his pitch, there's all kinds of stuff that could happen that he doesn't have any control over. It's not that results can vary, it's that results will and do vary. Good pitching helps to prevent runs, but there are other factors that are really, really important--especially if you are talking about five games.
socaltwinsfan replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:57:39 pm
Perkins four starts have come against the exact same teams and two of them (Boston and Detroit) are better against lefties.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:11:17 pm
Oh, I'm sorry. Perkins has had four good starts and Boof has had five bad starts. Clearly that is all that matters, and Perkins>Boof.
That Perkins got good results doesn't change that Boof faced a bunch of good hitters.
Algonad replied on May 27, 2008 at 4:22:55 pm
You argued that one of the reasons he's pitched poorly lately is the opposition. Socaltwinsfan pointed out that Perkins has faced the same opposition. I guess I don't see how this warrants the sarcastic faux apologetic tone.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 4:46:16 pm
I guess I'm just at the end of my rope with all of this small sample size theater nonsense. What is socaltwinsfan's point exactly? That those hitters aren't especially good based on the four games that Glen Perkins pitched? Or that Glen Perkins is really great based on those four games?
Bonser's had five bad games against good hitting teams. Despite that, there's reason to believe he'll be just fine going forward. Perkins has had four good games against good hitting teams. Despite that, there's plenty of reason to believe he's way over his head and he'll regress.
Where's the evidence that ERA trumps peripherals over the course of a month? Where's the evidence that ERA trumps peripherals over the course of a season? Where's the evidence that we should throw out Bonser's track record over five bad games? (Because I guarandamntee that no one wanted Boof out of the rotation when his ERA was 3.75.) Where's the evidence that 60 career innings is enough to disregard a pitcher's consistently awful control throughout his entire career?
This is the exact same thing that we went through with Kyle Lohse, except that Lohse was a jerk so no one felt bad really laying into him. We heard all kinds of BS about how Lohse "just wasn't getting it done" based on his flukish ERA in 2006, when there was every sign in the world that it would come back to earth. And what has happened since then? Lohse has stayed healthy and had a league average ERA for every team he's pitched for since he's left the Twins.
To a lesser degree, it's the same thing that happened with Ponson last year. Did his ERA suck? Sure, but he'd only pitched seven games and there were indications that he was a better pitcher than that. So far this year, he's actually had a lucky ERA, but he's still pitched better than, say, Livan Hernandez. But Sidney was fat and had character issues, so no one minded running him out of town.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:20:37 pm
Shit, and I forgot to mention that Bonser's been stabbed in the back by his bullpen more than any of the other starters. Of the 8 runners that have been on base when Gardy took him out of the game, 6 of those have been allowed to score. Those go into his ERA just the same as if he allowed a leadoff HR, but clearly he has a different amount of control over the runners that his bullpen let in.
Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and prevent Henry Chadwick from ever creating ERA in the first place.
twayn replied on May 27, 2008 at 2:36:38 pm
When you finish building your time machine, see what you can do about eradicating the Win, Loss, and Save stats, too. And say hello to Doc Brown for me.
davidwatts replied on May 27, 2008 at 3:39:30 pm
+ 1.21 jiggawatts
twayn replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:07:35 pm
I tell them that Boof has had a bad month, but I'm confident the results will improve and that he's their teammate and they ought to have some faith in their teammate.
Well, Cuddyer and RonDelmon shouldn't have any problem with that explanation.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:08:45 pm
Exactly. I could even ask for a show of hands for all the players who have never had a bad month in their career.
zooomx replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:49:53 pm
1) I have never had a bad month hitting in the major leagues.
2) I agree with you on most of your points above. I think Boof will bounce back at some point. However, watching Boof, he just does not look confident. Can he find his groove again at the major league level, or would it actually benefit him to pitch out of the bullpen or in AAA for a while?
3) I totally agree with you on ERA. It drives me crazy when I guy gets off the hook for 6 runs in an inning because an error occured earlier in the inning.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:53:03 pm
Or a bad career in a month, for that matter.
I tend to favor hanging on to Perkins in this case. I'm not a Perkins fan by any means, but if it's close to a push, then I'd at least like to have a lefty available in my starting five.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:03:54 pm
However, watching Boof, he just does not look confident.
To me, that's one of those things that you can't tell by watching. The only person who really knows about Boof's confidence is Boof. [Side rant: this is one of my pet peeves with Bert--he assumes certain things about a pitcher's mindset based on his actions, when it's just not clear that there's a direct correlation. When a pitcher is taking a long time between pitches, he always takes that as a sign that he's timid or something, but it could just be that the pitcher is being deliberate or trying to calm himself down or a dozen other things. If I had never seen Joe Nathan before in my life, and then I saw him step into the ninth inning to pitch, I would tell you that he looks like a nervous wreck out there--and maybe he is nervous as hell when he's on the mound, but it sure hasn't affected his performance.]
I don't necessarily have a problem with speculating on such matters, it's just that I think it's good to keep in mind that it's generally difficult to correctly discern someone's emotions from their actions and it's tough to say how those emotions are going to affect their performance even if we know their emotions perfectly. In the same way that Tom Kelly said that momentum is tomorrow's starting pitcher, sometimes a pitcher's confidence could be as simple as whether he's facing the Red Sox or the Royals in his next start.
That said, players are human, and sometimes it's a good idea to give them an easier assignment to give them some additional confidence. (Again, this is a tricky business, because sometimes a demotion can equally ruin someone's confidence.) But that's the sort of thing that Ron Gardenhire and Rick Anderson know more about than I do. The difference between Bonser and Perkins for a few starts probably isn't a big deal either way, but I guess that my inclination would be to stick with Boof for now.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:08:01 pm
but if it's close to a push, then I'd at least like to have a lefty available in my starting five.
Why? I can understand the utility of having a lefty in the bullpen, but unless you are specifically juggling the rotation so that Perkins faces teams that are vulnerable to left-handed pitching, by putting a lefty on the mound, you lose platoon advantage with more hitters than you gain it with.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:12:47 pm
I can understand the utility of having a lefty in the bullpen, but unless you are specifically juggling the rotation so that Perkins faces teams that are vulnerable to left-handed pitching
Exactly. I'm thinking ahead to the post-season. \snark
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:17:23 pm
Rhubarb_Runner replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:43:11 pm
In that case, we should be hiding Perkins...
ubel, it's superior thinking like this that explains why you're The Man!
davidwatts replied on May 27, 2008 at 12:19:53 pm
I think with Boof, its been the way he has given up all those runs. Its not one or 2 an inning every other inning, its been 6 runs in the 1st inning here cant make it through the 5th inning and the 9 runs in 3 innings from this debacle
Personally, I would like to see Boof in the pen for awhile when Baker comes back.
socaltwinsfan replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:25:58 pm
If it was just one bad month, I wouldn't worry about it, but in Boof's last 31 games (30 starts) dating back to his first start in June last year (so essentially one year), Boof has an ERA of 6.02 and a WHIP of 1.50. I have a hard time believing that that is bad luck or the defense or the bullpen just hate him or whatever. Don't forget, he lost his starting spot at the end of last year as well before getting one last start at the end of the year.
In the last year he's had three bad months (June, August, May), one good month (April), and a couple average months.
Meanwhile, Glen Perkins' career ERA in the major leagues in 60 1/3 innings (27 games) is 2.83 (147 ERA+) and his career WHIP is 1.14.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:31:04 pm
ERA and WHIP are not good ways to evaluate pitchers, and 60 innings represents roughly 17% of Glen Perkins' career.
socaltwinsfan replied on May 27, 2008 at 4:12:23 pm
xFIP is fine for predictions etc., but it totally disregards balls put in play, which means that it assumes that all balls put in play are equal, which is ludicrous. Plus, last I checked, Boof and Perkins are playing in front of the same defense and are pretty similar type pitchers other than their handedness.
If we are talking about who will be in the rotation instead of who should be in the rotation, then ERA and WHIP are what will be used to evaluate that along with walk rates (Twins don't put much stock in K rates), and we all know that. And to just disregard well-accepted stats that have been used for decades is senseless. Yes, they have flaws, but they do have value.
If we are talking about how well Perkins has pitched, that 17 percent is all that counts.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 4:22:27 pm
If we are talking about who will be in the rotation instead of who should be in the rotation
Then we shouldn't be talking at all. If all you care about is who will be in the rotation, you might as well sit back and let the team do whatever the hell it wants to do, read whatever Kelly Theiser has to say about the team and turn your brain off.
I care about whether or not they are making intelligent decisions. Because I care about that, I am forced to look at the big picture, not overreact to small sample sizes, and I am forced to conclude that yes there is a difference between pitching and run prevention, and I'm not going to let Henry Chadwick's ridiculous 19th century statistic get in the way of my understanding any more than I'm going to post the next game log by sending SBG a telegram.
brianS replied on May 27, 2008 at 4:57:23 pm
Let us have peace in our time.
socaltwinsfan replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:11:26 pm
I don't find ERA or WHIP as ridiculous as evaluating a pitcher based on only 25 percent (or less) of the batters he faces. Boof has faced 272 batters this year, and of those he has walked 40, struck out 17 and allowed a home run to eight of them, meaning that xFIP takes into account 65 of the 272 batters faced or just under 24 percent. I can't see how using that to evaluate a pitcher's performance is any more useful than ERA, especially in conjunction with WHIP.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:15:34 pm
I welcome you to look into the research on the subject. Start here for instance. Regardless of your level of comfort with the statistics, FIP and xFIP and better future predictors of ERA than WHIP or ERA itself. You can hand wave at it all day, but you have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:21:22 pm
Also, not only is this ridiculous, it is false:
I don't find ERA or WHIP as ridiculous as evaluating a pitcher based on only 25 percent (or less) of the batters he faces. Boof has faced 272 batters this year, and of those he has walked 40, struck out 17 and allowed a home run to eight of them, meaning that xFIP takes into account 65 of the 272 batters faced or just under 24 percent.
xFIP projects a pitcher's home run rate based on his fly ball rate (because there's randomness there, too), so xFIP takes into account strikeouts, walks, HBP, and fly balls. (This is why I'm constantly talking about why it's good for a pitcher to get a lot of ground balls.) Which in and of itself brings you to more than 24% of all batters he's faced.
But what's really ridiculous about that statement is that we can't know that Boof has struck out 17% of hitters wihtout knowing that 83% of hitters he faced didn't strike out. So it's not like we're completely ignoring hitters who don't hit into one of the three true outcomes.
brianS replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:53:29 pm
SBG replied on May 27, 2008 at 6:10:33 pm
Seriously, "The Captain"? Of what? His chess club? The Wusses of America Club? The New York Yankees?
What a lame shtick.
davidwatts replied on May 27, 2008 at 6:24:09 pm
He is the Captain of cool music!
brianS replied on May 27, 2008 at 6:36:14 pm
He is the Captain of the Keyboards!
brianS replied on May 27, 2008 at 6:38:33 pm
I also find it humorous that their own label screwed up the name of the act on that disk sleeve. "Captain and Tennille", not "The Captain..."
and yes, I'm proud to know that factoid.
twayn replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:38:08 pm
Not that it impacts his pitching metrics, but Boof has once again this year received the least run support among our starting pitchers, with the exception of Liriano's 3 starts (1 run per game).
Boof = 3.55
Slowey = 4.00
Blackburn = 4.09
Perkins = 5.11
Livan = 6.16
Baker = 6.66
Clearly, Baker's Faustian bargain this year had the result one would expect.
Rhubarb_Runner replied on May 27, 2008 at 1:48:05 pm
+7 horns
E-6 replied on May 27, 2008 at 2:00:23 pm
If man is 5
If man is 5
If man is 5
Then the devil is 6
Then the devil is 6
Then the devil is 6
Then the devil is 6
And if the devil is 6
Then God is 7
And God is 7
And God is 7
By that reasoning, +5 Twayn.
SBG replied on May 27, 2008 at 4:16:07 pm
Guess which team has the best defensive efficiency in the majors? Hint: their shortstop has had a problem with leadership in the past.
twayn replied on May 27, 2008 at 4:55:14 pm
Wow. When you peruse this table interactively for defensive efficiency, pitching VORP, and hitting VORP, you see some really interesting things. My first impression looking at the Twins overall MLB rankings was, "How are we possibly doing even well enough to be at .500 right now." But when you drill down to the AL, and then the Central Division, you start to see some trends that could explain why. The Tigers have by far the best hitter VORP in the Central at 72.6, but the absolute worst pitcher VORP at 3.4. Their lineup is crushing, but their pitchers are barely performing above replacement level. Only the Rangers and Mariners have worse pitching and they're actually below replacement level. The White Sox have the best VORP in the Central for pitchers and second best for hitters, as well as the best defensive efficiency. Makes sense for the first place club. Cleveland is pitching very well, but hitting very, very poorly. KC is pitching better than the Twins, but their hitting is the absolute worst in baseball. The Twins may be mediocre this year, but in their division they're mediocre with more balance between pitching, hitting, and defense, it would seem.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:31:18 pm
The Tigers have by far the best hitter VORP in the Central at 72.6, but the absolute worst pitcher VORP at 3.4. Their lineup is crushing, but their pitchers are barely performing above replacement level.
Bonderman and Verlander have been huge disappointments so far this year and there's nothing in their peripherals to suggest they'll improve very much. (And Verlander's velocity is way down.) Detroit looks to be in pretty rough shape. (Plus their defense had question marks even going into the season>)
Cleveland is pitching very well, but hitting very, very poorly.
This is the craziest PrOPS list I've ever seen. Based on their batted ball types, Cleveland's been something like the most unlucky team in the history of the universe. (Or they've played in really cold weather or they've run up against some really awesome defenses or something.) Cleveland's offense still has problems even if they start hitting where PrOPS says they belong, but they ought to rebound some.
SBG replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:42:41 pm
The craziest thing about that PrOPS list is Jason Tyner with at .792 PrOPS. What's even better is that he projects to a .505 OBP and a .287 SLG. An OBP that's over 220 points higher than his SLG?!?! That's hilarious! I realize SSST, but you can't help but laugh at that.
ubelmann replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:47:57 pm
Even PrOPS breaks when you're talking about 3 PA. But I'm sure that Tyner is really ticked at the Indians and can't wait for his shot to show them who's boss.
SBG replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:36:55 pm
That link is awesome goodness. Lots of fun stuff to look at.
brianS replied on May 27, 2008 at 6:00:08 pm
and while you are at it...PrOPS has Jason Bartlett at 658. Still "not good", but not abysmally sucktastic.
Moss replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:33:03 pm
The Rays aren't complaining at all about Bartlett's poor offense (.500ish OPS). They are happy to have him, and have recognized that he is making plays that would have been sure base hits last year.
And the only reason he's not here is that he was in Gardy's doghouse. When will we be free from this clown?
SBG replied on May 27, 2008 at 5:41:37 pm
Bartlett is at .581 OPS, which is sucktastic, but what I've read about the Rays defense is exactly what we've said about JB for years: he gets to balls that get by a lot of other guys. I think he's a better hitter than that (PECOTA projected him at .261/.327/.368, which would be pretty good, but the idea that he can't play defense is ridiculous.