SB Nation User Blog: Jim Wisinski

Winning or losing the division

Jim Wisinski — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:52:37 -0000

So maybe you're concerned about the Rays holding onto their division lead now that the trade deadline has come and gone. Personally I'm not because for one thing I don't consider the situation to be very dire anyway, I don't think that the acquisitions of Rodriguez and Bay, which are upgrades over the players they replaced, are going to make a significant difference over just two months of the season. I also know for a fact that the Rays recent troubles with RISP hitting won't continue because it's basically impossible for that to happen, it would defy any sort of logic and intelligent thought if it did so. There are also upgrades available in the minors, such as Salas or Price as relievers or Ruggiano to bat against lefties. The Rays remain just as good, if not better, of a team going forward as they were the first four months of the season.

The other reason I'm confident in the Rays having a good shot at winning the division is that a three and four game lead with two months to go is larger than you may think.

If you look at the monthly records for the three AL East teams you'll see that the best two month record is 35-20 by the Rays, for a .636 winning percentage. Neither the Red Sox or Yankees broke .600 over two months of games. While it is possible for a team to play better than that for two months and it does happen sometimes it's a pretty unlikely scenario. That means that with 55 games to go the situation breaks down like this (the Red Sox have 53 games to go but for convenience we'll assume 55, since they're down four in the loss column I don't think this negatively affects them):

Each team is extremely likely to win and lose 20 games over the rest of the season. To do otherwise would be to play at a good or bad level that's very unlikely to happen. That means that in reality the only games that matter, the only ones where these moves or non-moves can affect the pennant race, are the other 15. That's right, the Red Sox and Yankees really only have 15 games in which they can gain three or four games, respectively, on the Rays.

Anything can happen but I like the way this team looks with a couple upgrades from the minors and I think they're definitely good enough to keep up with the Red Sox and Yankees for those 15 important games.

Who's the best?

Jim Wisinski — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:06:39 -0000

Who's the best?

I'm not entirely sure that the Rays aren't the best team in the division this year. We will see.

Playoff run

Jim Wisinski — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:23:37 -0000

Playoff run

Today, June 26th, 2008, I am officially a complete and unreserved believer in the Rays as being playoff contenders this season. Anything less than the wild card will be somewhat disappointing, they're the favorite for it.

Link is relevant to the situation.

Stadium plans and location issues

Jim Wisinski — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:43:10 -0000

The stadium news coming down today seems to be the logical course of action. This has seemed rushed from the beginning, trying to go from intial plans and presentation to having everything basically finalized within a year. That's a pretty short time considering the various approvals needed to go forward with it and the brief timeframe plays into the hands of groups like POWW using fear-mongering tactics to sway people to their side while presenting little in the way of actual facts. I'm also pleased on a personal level because this means that the heated stadium discussions will probably die down soon and this will cease to be a distraction to the great year the team on the field is having. It would be great to just enjoy the success the organization is finally having and not have anything else going on but instead we have this non-baseball stuff demanding lots of news time as well.

What I mainly wanted to bring up today though was the seemingly widespread perception (at least among Tampa residents) that having the stadium on that side of the bay would greatly increase attendance and that the stadium's current location is the reason the turnout is disappointing to some people (it isn't to me but that's a separate issue altogether). This is, in my opinion, bunk.

This school of thought operates off the theory that the inaccessability of the stadium (which isn't nearly as bad as they'd have you believe compared to the travel time for most major league parks anyway) is keeping people away because it's too difficult for them to get out and support the team, but having it in Tampa would make things all rosy. Why the heck should we believe this? For one thing, from what I've heard from people who live in Tampa and see the amount of fans heading back over the bridges after games, there isn't a massive disparity in Hillsborough vs. Pinellas attendance. That strongly suggests that Hillsborough residents are going but, just like Pinellas/Manatee residents, aren't going in as large of numbers as we'd like to see.

Beyond that, why should anyone expect that Tampa residents will show up in massive support? The Buccaneers didn't exactly draw wonderful crowds before they were good, in fact their games were horribly attended except for when other teams fans filled the place (sound familiar?). Would a really bad baseball team have done any better over there? Not likely, in fact I'm sure it wouldn't have been any better in an amount worth noting. So why should we make the assumption that a really bad franchise that is suddenly good would get supported very well in Tampa but not in St. Petersburg? Does the entire area love a winner, ignore a loser, but only in Tampa do they like a loser becoming a winner? What kind of logic is this? It has been pointed out repeatedly by myself and others but I'll say it again. Baseball attendance increases don't happen overnight, especially not for a team that has never had a shred of success in its entire history and was abysmally marketed prior to 2006. It takes more than a month or even three months of good play to really make attendance boom and even later in the season you don't see the effects like you will in the following year. To try to pin the lagging attendance on the stadium's location is a very weak argument that seems to be made more out of the desire to have the team play in Tampa than out of real facts and reasonable assumptions.

Follow-up on contention

Jim Wisinski — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:39:35 -0000

During the previous homestand I made an entry about my views on the Rays as contenders. My conclusion was that if they continued to play well on that homestand (which they certainly did, going 8-2 overall) and had a decent road trip in three tough places to go then I'd let all my reservations go. They went 3-6 on that road trip including another sweep in Boston, falling short of my stated goal of 4-5. With their good performance in Texas and maybe only losing the finale in Anaheim because of abysmally incompetent umpiring at a crucial time in the game I felt a little better about the rest of the season but I feel that they haven't completely gotten over the hump yet because of one potentially damaging weakness.

That weakness is 3/5 of the rotation. Kazmir and Shields are fine, if they're healthy nobody should worry about them at all. In fact they're a great 1-2 punch to throw at teams (personally I couldn't care less about Shields' road performance this year, HFA has been somewhat out of whack so far anyway and he was fine on the road in 2007, there's nothing to worry about in my eyes). The problem is with the other guys.

Edwin Jackson had those two great starts in the first half of May that really impressed even me. Since then however he has thrown 28.1 innings with a 5.08 ERA, allowing 36 hits and 15 walks to only 19 strikeouts. That's very similar to what he did before those two great starts. He did have that brief stint of greatness, showing that at times he really can put it together, but he's still very hittable, walks too many, and doesn't strike out nearly enough for the supposed power pitcher he is. This is with offense down across the league and a great defense backing him. How can we say that he has really turned a corner when his short time of brilliance is sandwiched by two longer periods of the same old stuff?

Matt Garza has tons of talent, nobody can disagree with that, and his great stuff is much more obvious than Jackon's (as Jackson often doesn't look like his pitches are anything special). That being said he obviously lacks a handle on his emotions and it repeatedly gets him into trouble out there. His walk rate isn't terrible, 3.6/9 is manageable for a power pitcher getting strikeouts, but he isn't getting the strikeouts. Obviously I don't know for sure but I think it's a fair bet that his emotional outbursts are preventing him from pitching smartly and making the pitches that fool hitters and rack up the K's.

Andy Sonnanstine doesn't have walk problems and though he has a low strikeout rate that's perfectly acceptable due to his tendency to keep hitters from jogging to first base. The problem is major hittability due to his tendency to leave balls up in the zone. His actual stuff is adequate, he doesn't throw hard but anyone who has watched his starts has seen plenty of good sequences where hitters just can't get good contact off anything. Unfortunately these periods of mystifying the batters rarely last an entire game; as I type this I'm watching the Rays-Marlins game and he began the game by giving up hard hits to the first three batters on balls left up in the zone then retiring 12 straight by keeping the ball down and the hitters off-balance. Unfortunately he went back to having trouble in the 5th and 6th innings, resulting in an early exit. I'm not sure what the problem is, it's obviously a mechanical thing, but it's a persistent problem and until he proves that he can fix it and have it stay fixed then we can't assume much about the future.

The good news is that between Jeff Niemann and the surging Mitch Talbot (ERA of 2.83 with a 51/10 K/BB in 63.2 IP over his last 10 starts) they do have options if they feel a move is necessary. The problem is that it's not necessarily that easy to decide who goes. The majority of us would favor either Jackson or Sonnanstine going, depending on our personal inclinations, but I don't think it's as simple as either camp would like it to be. Jackson does have better stuff and therefore a higher ceiling, plus his overall performance hasn't been terrible in the general results department, a 4.08 ERA on the season. However, while Sonnanstine's ceiling is limited, a mechanical/delivery option is more likely to be fixable than a lack of ability to "pitch" or general insanity on the mound. A minority might favor Garza leaving the rotation but I think he's the least problematic of the three and also has the highest ceiling.

So, while I continue to love what the team is doing and am very pleased with the progress made this season, I still have my concerns about maintaining this very high level of success over 162 games. We're well into June though and they keep playing well and nobody else is stepping up to look like a real wild card threat, plus Boston isn't exactly pulling away with the division either despite six straight wins over the Rays, so rotation concerns or not they may just become surefire contenders by default soon enough.

Pena to DL

Jim Wisinski — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:22:37 -0000

Pena to DL

"Rays first baseman Carlos Pena was placed on the 15-day disabled list with a fractured left index finger."

Ruggiano was recalled to take his place.

Contenders, after June 11th

Jim Wisinski — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:44:19 -0000

I'm generally what you would consider an optimist on the Rays, often expecting good things to come about even when I might be reaching a bit because I want it to be true. I also like to think of myself as a realist though and therefore before the season started I said that the Rays would be at or above .500 but I thought any playoff talk was stretching reality a bit. I maintained that all spring and so far throughout this season, saying that I liked what was happening but the playoffs were something for next season. In my opinion that's the right course to take, usually when people make conclusions based on a month or two of play that contradict what they believed before the season they end up being wrong, a single month of baseball can be more than enough to return things to their proper place, hopes to be dashed, or disappointment turned into satisfaction.

However, after 49 games the Rays are tied for the second best record in baseball and that can't be ignored. I was interested when they swept Boston but didn't change my opinion. Once they swept the Angels I had to admit that I was wavering on my previous stance. Now they went .500 on a rather tough road trip and really could have won four or five of those games instead of just three, the two losses in St. Louis were rather unusual for this season with them losing the games themselves instead of simply getting beat by a team that played better than them that day. Now, after a brutal series finale in Oakland, they've had two convincing wins over Baltimore with a good chance at the sweep this afternoon. Evidence in their favor just keeps mounting.

This isn't some team that looks like a two month fluke either. You know those teams happen in any season, teams that are outperforming their run differential too much or benefitting from too many performances that almost certainly won't continue. No, if you look at the Rays there isn't a lot of crazy stuff going on. Their pythagorean record is 27-22, well within normal variance. Their record based on expected runs scored and allowed as calculated by Baseball Prospectus is 28-21. Navarro won't keep hitting .350 or better but his line drive and strikeout rates this season suggest that he could easily stay around .300 and it wouldn't be surprising to see his walks and power go up a tad as the season progresses. Hinske's hitting barrage was a major boost early but, except for his slugging percentage still being higher than you'd expect, he has come back to earth. Fall-off from them really ought to be balanced out by improvements from others. Jason Bartlett has a strong minor and major league history of being an adequate hitter for his position, there's little reason to believe the .573 OPS will continue. Carlos Pena is obviously struggling to make contact since that hamstring problem early in the season but it's not ridiculous to think he'll hit .250 at minimum and at least get up to around .250/.360/.500 is it? BJ Upton has more power than he has shown so far. Longoria should improve over the course of the season as he adjusts to the majors. The team is basically a league average offense right now and should probably be slightly better than that once the season is all over.

Looking at the pitching side of things there isn't much craziness either. Edwin Jackson remains an enigma but even I was truly impressed with a couple of the recent starts he made. Maybe he'll fall off, maybe he won't and all his defenders (I wasn't one of them, as you all know) will be proven right. At worst his ERA shouldn't be above 4.75. Garza is another strange one and unless he gets his control and strikeout ability in line then he'll see some regression in his ERA but at least he's a talented guy who has plenty going for him. Shields and Kazmir are who they are and there's no need to be concerned with them, Sonnanstine is up-and-down but will either improve or get replaced. Same goes for Garza and Jackson later in the season if they don't keep their performance levels up. Looking at the bullpen I don't see anything strange at all. Percival should be good as long as he's healthy, Wheeler's performance is no different than what he did in Houston from 2004-2006 once you adjust for the lower run environment this year, Miller will actually get better if Maddon stops using him against right-handers, Reyes gets a lot of completely undeserved scorn due to ONE outing where he gave up four of the five runs he has allowed this season. JP Howell has been amazing but he has always had great secondary pitches and pitching in relief has allowed him to avoid his low velocity fastball getting exposed.

The real key to this team's success though is the defense. Defense wins championships isn't just a football reality, just take a look at the surprise World Series team the last three years. The White Sox, Tigers, and Rockies all greatly outperfomed expectations because their pitching outperformed expectations and that was because they were all at or near the top of the majors in Defensive Efficiency and the effect of great defense wasn't accounted for in preseason projections. Having a great defense is a huge asset to a team and the best part of it is that as long as you aren't changing players around it's basically slump proof. Your defense may have a bad game every now and then but you never go on a losing stretch because your fielders stopped getting to balls. The defense was a big reason for our optimism in the spring, the defense is the reason the team has outperformed expectations, and the defense is the reason we can talk about the team maintaining a high level of performance in the future.

The question now becomes "When can I call them legitimate contenders?" This may seem overly dramatic but in my mind it's important and not something to take lightly. To say they're contenders means that I don't think they'll regress much. To say they're contenders means that I don't just think that they're good and might have a shot, I'm saying that I expect them to be able to finish this season with at least a better record than every non-division winner in the AL. To say they're contenders means that I expect them to be in the playoffs and will be faced with real disappointment if they aren't. I will be throwing my preseason beliefs in the garbage and drawing a conclusion based on partial season results.

So when can I call them legitimate contenders? After looking at the schedule I have an answer. The Rays have won the first two games of a ten game homestand and coming up next are the Rangers, a team that often struggles on the road (most likely due to the extreme nature of their home park). After that is four games against the White Sox, a team whose success I have some doubts about but whose performance so far can't be denied and therefore they must be considered a serious opponent at the level of other division leaders. They need to go at least 6-4 on this homestand; 7-3 would be great but just so long as they win more than they lose I'll be happy. The real test though is after that when they go on a nine game road trip. This will take them to Boston and Anaheim, home of the two best teams in the league. They will also go to Texas where it's always tough on the road team. That's the toughest road trip of the season with the possible exception of one in September (at TOR, BOS, and NYY).

If they go at least 6-4 at home and 4-5 on that tough trip, making them 39-29 and 10 games over .500 almost halfway through June, then I will call them contenders. If they can't do that and falter in the face of tough road games, well, I'll keep my doubts a while longer.

Gabe Gross needs another home run

Jim Wisinski — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:37 -0000

That would boost his slugging percentage over .400 and put him in the not particularly prestigious but at least interesting .200/.300/.400 club with Longoria, Pena, and Gomes. The requirements for this club are of course having a batting average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage at or above those numbers but not much higher. They stand at this after today's game:

Pena: .209/.313/.403
Longoria: .211/.311/.400
Gomes: .209/.316/.418
Gross: .205/.319/.385

This isn't just statistical trivia though, it's a good jumping off point for analysis. Setting aside the low batting averages for a moment all four of these players have two important things you want from a hitter: around 100 points difference between his BA and OBP (IsoD) and around 200 points between BA and SLG (IsoP). With Pena, a slugging first baseman, you'd like to see more like .250 or higher in IsoP but .200 is a good start at least and along with the high IsoD provides a good platform for valuable production even if the power didn't go up (I'm positive it will but that's not relevant at the moment). That means that all four of these players have an obvious ability to contribute to the team more if only those BAs would stop hanging out with Mario Mendoza.

So now the question is why are they that low and will they go up? Since it's still very early in the season and we're working with small sample sizes it's obvious that all four players could easily shoot up the rankings at any time, we just want to know now how likely it is.

The first thing to look at is BABIP. League average tends to be somewhere around .300, though it can vary greatly for hitters based on a variety of factors, so if it's well below .300 there's the possibility of it merely being bad luck so far, balls just not falling in for hits like they should. Once you have those numbers you should look at LD%, it has been established that in the majority of cases you can figure out about what a hitter's BABIP is by adding .11-.12 to his LD% (when expressed in decimal form instead of percentage). I'll take the middle and add .115 to get xBABIP and then xBA for each hitter (X is for expected). These numbers are through yesterday's game so they don't match up precisely with the ones above but it's close enough for me to make the points.

	BABIP	LD%	xBABIP	xBA
Pena	.240	14.5	.260	.225
Longoria	.254	22.2	.337	.290
Gomes	.212	10.9	.224	.221
Gross	.227	12.5	.240	.211

Obviously Longoria is just getting screwed so far, he may not keep hitting 22% of his balls for line drives but that average is bound to come up even without accounting for natural improvement as he adapts to the majors. He's fine.

Pena's LD% is down some (18% last year) but the main cause for his problems has been a strikeout rate worse than he had even with the Tigers outside of 2005. I suspect it's a swing issue related to the combination of the earlier slump and hamstring problem, over time the chances are pretty good that he'll iron it out and reduce it to around 30% or so; hopefully that will also produce more line drives and he can get up to the .260-.270 mark at least.

Gomes and Gross just aren't hitting line drives. Gomes has actually significantly reduced his strikeout rate so far but the lack of line drives is killing him. The good news is that he has a history of much higher LD% numbers so that's in favor of him getting better, unless he's striking out less because he's just making contact but not good enough contact. No way for us to know that without extensive study of film of all his plate appearances this season. Gross also has always had good LD% numbers so there's hope for him improving that as well but with his inconsistency in the majors so far in his career it's hard to say what he'll do.

Only time will tell which of those three will make it out of the .200/.300/.400 club but the nice thing about being in that club is that you're still decently productive even with the low BA, all four players entered today with EqAs of .260 (league average) or better.

Jackson tonight, how good was he?

Jim Wisinski — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:25:48 -0000

Jackson tonight, how good was he?

Seven innings tonight, three walks to four strikeouts, just 57% of his pitches for strikes, four three ball counts that didn't result in walks, several pitches that weren't anywhere close to the plate. Sure, the total result for the game was nice but was this really that encouraging for projection of future performance? The baserunners won't always be scattered evenly across all the innings and the line drives won't always go right at the fielders. Be impressed if you want but I don't see how Jackson's performance tonight was that encouraging for him actually being good in the future. Still doesn't know where the ball is going half the time.

More Pitchers Than Spots

Jim Wisinski — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:13:00 -0000

While having more pitchers available than you can fit into the rotation is usually considered a good problem to have it is still a problem that must be sorted out. The first step was taken yesterday with Jeff Niemann being returned to the Durham Bulls; although it was a shame that he only was able to make two starts he was the obvious choice due to him originally being up to replace Garza and also because the other three pitchers in contention for the rotation spots were ahead of him in line for evaluation. Another good start might have forced the Rays to make a harder decision but that just wasn't to be; he may have been going back down anyway no matter what he did.

That leaves the trio of Jason Hammel, Edwin Jackson, and Andy Sonnanstine left for the two spots that will remain available after Kazmir's return at the beginning of May. Before I say anything else I should make my potential bias clear though I will do my best to be utterly objective in my analysis: I'm no Jackson fan, I didn't like him starting last season in the rotation, didn't like him staying there all year, and am not exactly thrilled that he's still in there. He hasn't been worth anything in the past four seasons at any level and in my opinion isn't close to suddenly becoming good. I am a Sonnanstine believer, I think that given time in the majors to adjust he can be an averagish innings muncher though his upside is limited due to his low velocity. As for Hammel, I've believed in him for years and haven't stopped believing in him at any point, though I'm one of a very small minority that felt good about him being in the rotation to start the season.

With that out of the way, the relevant numbers for the gentlemen so far:

	ERA	K/9	BB/9	K/BB	H/9	HR/9
Hammel	4.26	6.16	1.42	3.25	9.00	0.47
Sonnanstine	5.55	4.81	0.74	3.25	9.25	1.85
Jackson	4.63	6.94	3.86	1.38	6.94	0.77

The one thing that stands out immediately is that Hammel has clearly been the best of the three so far, although he has had one fewer start to succeed/fail in. He has yet to have a start that could be considered poor (four runs in six innings on the road against the Yankees is quite decent in my eyes) and barring a complete and utter meltdown in his two remaining starts before Kazmir's return he almost certainly has a spot locked up and deservedly so. He has upside as well, his fastball can reach the mid-90s, his curveball is inconsistent still but has massive break when it's on, his changeup is ok, and he has above average control.

That leaves Sonnanstine and Jackson, two extremely different pitchers who have had similiar major league results in the category that really matters in the end: runs allowed. Neither has performed well and either of them could justifiably lose their rotation spot; Jackson's hot start was quickly erased by two generally incompetent performances that looked a lot like last season and Sonnanstine has one gem, one decent start, one mediocre one, and one in which he got bombed all over the place.

The case against Sonnanstine

He doesn't throw very hard and has a tendency to pitch up in the zone, not just in the majors but in the minors as well. Without a successful change in approach he can't succeed as a starter and through 155 innings he hasn't done much to fix that problem. His lack of velocity or an outstanding secondary pitch means that he has to have great control AND command if he's going to consistently get major league hitters out. He also has options remaining and therefore can be sent to the minors at any time, plus his strike-throwing approach may be suited well to short relief if he goes to the bullpen.

The case against Jackson

Jackson has always had a reputation for great stuff but thus far in his career he has peaked at 19 and been a mess since then. He is plagued by control problems, sometimes showing a complete inability to throw the ball anywhere near where it needs to go, and despite his strong arm and good slider he hasn't put up the strikeout totals you'd expect and that he needs to succeed with spotty control. His first two starts of the season were an anomaly compared to his career as a whole and his "successful" second half of 2007 was merely a result of him no longer getting bombed and also having some good luck; his strikeout and walk numbers were still shaky and portended future failure. The Rays have been giving him chances since 2006 and he disappoints every time.

That's the facts for the two, now here's an opinion. I think Jackson should be traded for whatever can be gotten for him or just DFA'd once Kazmir comes back, unless the Rays are unsure of the continued health of both Kazmir and Garza in which case it would probably make more sense to bury him in the bullpen for a little while. Everytime he shows something good he quickly returns to being lousy, I don't think he's going to suddenly figure it out anytime soon and become even an average starting pitcher. The Rays have given him 36 starts and 23 relief apperances and all too few of them have been productive. Sonnanstine doesn't have a big fastball or a dominant breaking pitch but he's a smart guy with great control and a pretty good idea of what he's doing out there, he needs to make adjustments but they're adjustments that he should be able to make.

However, if I had to guess what will happen when Kazmir comes back, then assuming that the situation stays basically the same (meaning that neither Sonnanstine or Jackson obviously wins or loses the spot in the two starts each of them have coming) I think Sonnanstine will either go to the minors or the bullpen, forcing us to continue to watch Edwin Jackson fall short of the hype for the fifth straight season. I don't know about you guys but I'm really tired of watching him pitch.