SB Nation User Blog: Michael Cave

Harden > Millwood

Michael Cave — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:49:37 -0000

The purpose of this fanpost is to find out whether having a lg avg Millwood or a dynamic, albeit oft-injured, Harden is better for the Rangers. Let me add a few disclaimers. I am operating on the assumption that there is no way the Rangers could have kept Millwood and still acquired Harden. I am also assuming the Rangers have/will do the proper due diligence on Harden so that he will not be damaged goods. The only stat im going to pay particular attention to is ERA+ because Im not knowledgeable enough about tRA, FIP, etc. Since I have a decent understanding of ERA+ I feel it can very useful for comparisons's sake.

Millwood:

While not being the ace some of us envisioned Millwood was valuable. He was a league average pitcher for a team that holds that at a premium. In his four years with Texas Millwood averaged 188 IPs and had an ERA+ of 102. Okay numbers but definitely not ace quality. His best year was last year was last year when he sported an ERA+ of 127. According to those that know more than I do about peripherals, his were perhaps the worst of his 4 yr stint with the Rangers. He was helped largely by a good to great defense. Basically, his average year for the Rangers was 31 starts, 188 IPs and an ERA+ of 102.

Harden:

I think many would agree that Harden's "stuff" is ace quality. However, he has rightly gotten the reputation for being injury prone. His past four years he has pitched very well when healthy. The past two years he has actually only started one less game than John Lackey, I believe. He had a lights out 2008 and 2009 was actually subpar by his standards. His peripherials suffered. Was that simply a blip or a harbinger of things to come? His past 4 years he has averaged 16 starts, 90 IPs, and had an ERA+ of 155.

The comparison:

Assume that Harden simply replaces Millwood as a TORP for the Rangers. Lets say the other Rangers that are in the rotation to start the season are Feldman, Hunter, Holland, and McCarthy. Harrison, Hurley, Feliz, Nippert, et al among many on the outside looking in. This team does NOT lack rotation candidates. With Millwood you knew what you were going to get: 188 innings of strictly league average pitching. Let's assume that Harden ONLY gets his average of 90 innings in during 16 starts. With that we would also have to assume that he achieves his average ERA+ over the past four years of 155. Well with Harden only getting 16 starts someone else has to make the other roughly 16 starts, right? The rangers still need to make up 98 innings that Millwood would have gotten them. Who makes them up? I am going to be conservative and say Matt Harrison does. Him and Derek Holland had the lowest ERA+ (76) of any Rangers starter with at least 10 starts. So what does the two headed monster of Harrison (if he repeats his performance from last yr) and Harden give you? 188 IPs and an ERA+ of 114. This is 12 pts better than what Millwood would give you.

I am making some very pessimistic assumptions here too. Im assuming that Harden only gives you 90 innings. What if he gave the Rangers 144 (what he has averaged the past 2 yrs) and Harrison only had to pony up 44 innings? The ERA+ jumps up to 136. MUCH better than what Millwood has historically given the Rangers. I am also assuming that Harrison or whomever would replace Harden, if injured, would perform very poorly. Feliz could very well replace Harden, Nippert could, Hurley, etc.

So this brings all of us to THE big question. Did the Rangers improve themselves by trading Millwood and then using the savings to sign Harden? In my opinion, the answer is a prohibitive.....YES.

Anderson/Cahill or Holland/Feliz?

Michael Cave — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:42:57 -0000

First, let me qualify this by saying I am a Rangers fan. Prior to this season and during last season there has been a huge debate over which duo in the West one would take: Anderson/Cahill or Holland/Feliz?

The season is about to be over and each guy has gotten a good amount of ML time (I am not going to dive too deep into the numbers as im sure many posters will invoke that information in a more qualified fashion than I could).

Trevor Cahill (age: 21)

Record: 10-12

ERA: 4.55

K/9: 4.6

K/BB: 1.27

Brett Anderson (age: 21)

Record: 11-12

ERA: 4.12

K/9: 7.7

K/BB: 3.3

Derek Holland (age: 22, about to turn 23)

Record: 8-12

ERA: 6.14

K/9: 7.1

K/BB: 2.21

Neftali Feliz (age: 21) – as a reliever

Record: 1-0

ERA: 1.80

Saves: 2

K/9: 11.4

K/BB: 5.43

A few comments: As a Ranger fan I can admit that as impressive/exciting as Feliz was, Holland was equally as frustrating. He would pitch marvelous games and then of course absolute stinkers. However this can be expected with rookies. Feliz was electric out of the pen this yr but there is a question of whether he will stay in his current role or start which makes the debate that much more intriguing. Anderson looks like the real deal. He will be terrorizing the Rangers for years im sure. Cahill’s K/9 worries me so next year itll be interesting to see if he increases it. Him and Anderson did make a pretty big jump this yr.

So which duo would you take right now for the next 10 yrs?

Poll

Which dynamic duo?

Anderson/Cahill

214 votes

Holland/Feliz

136 votes

350 votes | Poll has closed

I was wrong...

Michael Cave — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:36:20 -0000

Saw this over at Minorleagueball.com (awesome site run by John Sickels) and thought I would rob the idea a bit with a Rangers twist. Seems like this would be fun to do on a morning after a big DH sweep and AJM being unavailable.

Premise: In the comment section write a few predictions or opinions you had that were dead wrong. A lot of posters here (myself included) like to point out everytime they are right but sometimes dont readily admit when they were flat wrong. Ill go first of course (and yes some of these I can still be correct on but the probability has decreased a great deal):

1. I thought the Rangers would only win 83 games (knock on wood).

2. I thought it would only take 86-88 wins to take the AL West title.

3. I was on board with dealing Feliz (but not including Smoak, Perez, of Holland), and other parts to the Blue Jays for Halladay

4. I was wrong about Blake Beavan. I thought his FB would come back in full force this yr and his K rate would increase

5. I thought Chris Davis was going to hit around 40 HRs this yr.

6. I thought Hank Blalock was still alive.

7. I thought Taylor Teagarden would wrest the starting job from Salty via merit not injury

8. I thought that IF the Rangers were still in the playoff hunt in September it would be because Kinsler is having an MVP caliber yr and not MY.

9. Lastly, I thought if we were in the race this late it would be because of our juggernaut offense not our pitching and defense.

What were you wrong about? Some of the same as me? Different ones?

Draft Deadline Chat

Michael Cave — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:34:01 -0000

This is courtesy of Andy Seiler, resident draft guru. A little SBNation hiccup is not allowing him to post this message on this blog.

From Andy:

Anyway, just wanted to let you know I'm hosting a draft deadline chat over at MLB Bonus Baby at noon eastern. I've set up the chat so that you can send in questions now, and I'll be in right at noon to answer pretty much as many as you all would like. I ended up doing a marathon chat right before the draft, and this might be something similar if you're interested.

In addition, I wanted to let you know that I'm going to be hammering out the rest of the draft reviews over the next few weeks, and the Tigers are the next one. I'm going to be adding more 2010 content, as well, and I'll be doing a number of 2010 prospect profiles similar to the Bryce Brentz one I've done before. I'll be interviewing a number of 2010 draft prospects, too, so don't forget about the blog over the dead season in terms of draft interest.

Finally, just wanted to let you know that I'll soon be hosting a regular podcast, where I'll be talking to players, coaches, scouts, and other draft-related people. It should be pretty interesting for those that want to know how the draft process works in the offseason and how it affects the lives of everyone involved. There will be true baseball discussion, too, so don't forget about that.

Anyway, here's the direct link to my blog post about the chat, and I hope you'll send in some questions. The archive will be posted afterwards as usual, so if you can't join me live, send in your question now and check back later for the answer.

Did Matt Purke make the right decision?

Michael Cave — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:16:50 -0000

Matt Purke not signing got me to thinking. What does he really have to gain from turning down a reported a 4 million? Does he really think that he will get more after going to school for 2 years? Or does he simply want to experience college that much? If he really wanted to go to school you would think he would have told the Rangers that and the Rangers would have refrained from drafting him. This would lead me to believe it is money motivated. Now the question is, what historically have high school pitchers who were drafted in the 1st round (regular or supplemental) gained from turning down the teams that drafted them in the first round?

I confined my search to the last 30 years of the draft. There have been 9 HS pitchers who have turned down offers from their teams in the first round and supplemental first round:

Greg McMutry: Drafted 14th overall by the Red Sox in 1986. His heart was set on football apparently as he ended up playing at Michigan and then for the Pats.

Alex Fernandez: Drafted 24th overall by the Brewers but turned them down to go to Miami. Ended up getting drafted 4th overall in 1990 by the White Sox. Won the second most games of any first round pitcher in the 1990 draft. He most definitely improved his stock with a fantastic collegiate career at one of the top baseball schools in the 80s.

Scott Burrell: Drafted 26th overall by the Mariners. Had his heart set on basketball so he attended UConn to play basketball. He was drafted in the 5th round in 1990 by the Blue Jays and played baseball in the summers. Had some success but ultimately decided to concentrate on basketball.

Kenny Henderson: Drafted 5th overall by the Brewers. Reportedly wanted 1 mil but the Brewers only offered 500K. Decided to attend Miami. Was drafted in the 2nd round of the 94 draft by the Expos but did not sign. Drafted in the 5th round by the Padres in 95 and finally signed. Reached Hi-A ball at the age of 24 before getting injured.

Chad Hutchinson: Drafted 26th overall by the Braves in 1995. Decided to got to Stanford. Mainly to play football. Then drafted by the Cardinals in the 2nd round in 1998. Ended up making it to the majors for a few innings. Was a pretty big prospect but lacked consistency. Played some QB for our Cowboys.

Matt McClendon: Drafted 33rd overall by the Reds. Chose to attend Florida. Drafted in the 5th round in 1999 by the Braves. Couldn't even stick in the high minors with the Braves.

Mark Prior: Here is an interesting case. As I recall his bonus demands were out of this world coming out of HS. The Yankees took a stab with the 43rd pick. Not surprisingly he didn't sign. Picked 2nd overall in the 2001 by the Cubs. Labeled "cant-miss". Well thanks to injury he missed a bit. As far as a I know he is out of baseball.

Matt Harrington: Everyone knows this saga. Picked 7th overall. Turned down 3.7-4 mil from the Rockies in 2000. Apparently wanted 4.95 mil which would have been a 25 percent increase over Josh Hamilton's bonus the previous yr. Was then drafted every yr for the next 4 yrs. Wanted 2.4 mil as the 58th overall pick for the Padres but they only offered 1.2 mil. Read the recent ESPN article. Terrible decision after decision by this young man, his advisors and his family. There is a lot of blame to go around.

Gerrit Cole: 28th overall pick the Yankees last year. Had a very good Freshman yr for a mediocre (at best) UCLA team. Earned Pac-10 All-Conference honors. Was named a Freshman All-American by Collegiate Baseball Newspaper. Very little doubt that he would have been a top 10 pick if draft eligible this year. IIRC, he was expected to be a tough sign last year which is why he fell to no. 28.

So what does all this tell us about Matthew Purke's decision? Well, not much actually. You have 3 multi-sport athletes in Hutchinson, Burrell, and McMurtry. Purke didn't have that chip in negotiations. You have two guys that did improve their stock in Prior and Fernandez although it is easier to improve stock from the 43rd and 24th draft positions, respectively than the 14th position. Cole looks to be on the way to improving his stock however even if he were in the draft this yr as a hypothetical junior he probably would have not have earned more than a 4 mil signing bonus IMO. Matt Harrington is a poster child for just taking the money. However, he didn't even have a college lined up to fall back on. Then there is Henderson and McClendon. Both were drafted again but neither higher than their previous position. Both flamed out in the minors. The interesting thing about all of this? Purke is the ONLY lefty to do this. We are truly in uncharted territory here.

Hey I wish Purke all the luck in the world at TCU however I do highly doubt that he will earn more than a 4 million dollar bonus in 2 years. Mike Leake and Alex White, I believe, were thought to be the 2nd and 3rd best college pitchers in this year's draft. They received 2.27 mm and 2.25 mm respectively. Matzek "only" got 3.9 mm which is less than the reported 4 mm that was offered to Purke. This is truly perplexing as it really doesn't seem that Purke has much to gain from spurning the offer the Rangers put on the table. The only thing I can think of is that Purke wanted a major league deal. So unless Purke becomes a once in a decade college pitcher like Prior or Strasburg he will not earn more money.

Disclaimer: I used baseball-reference, Wikipedia and the UCLA team site as sources. Also, I did not include Matt White, John Patterson and Bobby Seay due to the abnormality of their situations. Excuse me for any grammar or spelling errors as this was written rather quickly.

Comparing the 2005 and 2009 Rangers

Michael Cave — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:03:05 -0000

There has been a lot of talk about the 2005 Rangers 30-20 start lately. The 2009 Rangers have an identical record after 50 games. The 2005 Rangers finished at 79-83 with a pythag W-L of 82-80. Obviously, everyone thinks that this iteration of Rangers baseball is special but there still has to be some fear that they will end up as another disappointment. The 2005 Rangers (18-7) actually had a better winning percentage in May than the 09 Rangers (20-10). Here are some numbers:

The 2005 Rangers:

The 2005 Rangers sported an OPS of .861 in May along with a .305 BABIP. That OPS was the best in the AL while the BABIP placed them 3rd in the AL. The had an ISO of .230 which was easily the best in the league. The pitchers for the 05 Rangers fared pretty well in retrospect for this month. They had an ERA of 3.51 which was good enough for 5th in the AL. Their FIP was 3.80 which was third in the league and BABIP of .297 which placed them 11th in the AL. This is where the wheels kind of fell off for the 05 Rangers. I could not find any site that could just single out May so I will have to work off of full season numbers for each team. The Rangers had a total UZR of -36.6 and a UZR/150 of -4.5 thanks in large part to terrible defensive play at SS (young), 3B (blalock), and 2B (Soriano).

The 2009 Rangers:

This year's Rangers posted an OPS of .816 which was good for 4th in the AL despite the recent apparent struggles by the offense. The BABIP that was posted stood at .313 which was good for 5th in the AL. The Rangers ended up tying for the AL lead in ERA with a 3.57 mark. Their FIP was 4.47 which placed them 9th in the AL. BABIP was .272 which was best in the AL. Fielding is where the 2009 Rangers are really excelling. Right now they have a UZR of 22.7 and a UZR/150 of 8.4. Both of those are best in the AL . This is due in large part to excellent defense in CF, RF, 2B, 1B and SS.

Conclusion:

I am just learning all of these metrics and find them very enjoyable. Im sure many of you will come to much more intellectual conclusions than I can muster at this point in my sabermetrics career. J. I think the general consensus amongst smart individuals that the reason the Rangers are currently enjoying this much success is due to the fielding is right on the mark. Their offense was not too bad in May however watching them you can see there are holes. The pitching may have been a bit lucky with their BABIP however im sure some of this can be contributed to an improvement in defense. The 2005 Rangers OPS for the year ended up being .798 so obviously there was some regression. Additionally, the team ERA of that team finished up at 4.97. Their BABIP for the season was .314. I really don't think that this years Rangers will end like the 2005 version because of the aforementioned fielding prowess. Hitting can slump, Pitching can slump but to me I have always thought that fielding is the most immune to slumping so to speak. Time will tell but I really think this team's success will not be short lived. I am currently working on a position by position analysis of the two clubs as well.

Scouting vs. Sabermetrics: Questions...

Michael Cave — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:30:09 -0000

This has been something that I have been contemplating for quite a long time. There seems to be a lot of debate on this subject. Admittedly, I am very new to sabermetrics despite playing baseball for a long while. Before entering this blog I knew what OPS was, OPS+, and ERA+ was (thanks to my reading over at baseball-reference). That is about it. The funny thing is that I am a very mathematical guy however I have just never gotten into stats like that. Forgetting my age (26), I was raised in an old school fashion. When I looked at a player and his value to the team I wanted to know just a few things: hits, rbi's, and avg or with a pitcher, wins, ERA, and K's. I never took too much stock in HRs for some reason. Before I ventured an opinion on the player I also wanted to see him play. I thought that was the only way to see if a player was good or not. You HAD to see him play.

Then after I finished playing in college I started finding all these cool baseball websites with stuff like the aforementioned ERA+ and OPS+. Then i started to get into this blog and started hearing about zone rating, wins above replacement, tRA?, PECOTA, win shares and the list could go on and on. I am slowly learning what they mean and the value. This brings me to the point of this post.

Bill James defines sabermetrics as the "search for objective knowledge about baseball". This seems noble enough however when does sabermetrics began and where does scouting end? This is where I would like to open up the debate. There are players like Mitch Moreland that statistically look great (to my knowledge) however when you see him he supposedly has a hole in his swing. There are pitchers that numbers look awesome at first glance however when you dig and look at how lucky they were (i dont remember the exact stat, but i know it exists or maybe that is for hitters) they arent looked at as fondly. Then there are the guys that look like future superstars while scouting but then have terrible numbers. I know there has to be some happy medium. Where is it? Where do you stop trusting sabermetrics and start trusting scouts? And vice versa? Sorry for my ramblings but this is a very intriguing subject to me.

OT: Yankees - CC, Lowe, AND Burnett?

Michael Cave — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:53:07 -0000

Okay please forgive me if this link does not work as this is the first time that I have tried to link something on this blog.

To sum up:

CC was offered 6 yrs and more than 137.5 mil. And the yankees are after Lowe and Burnett. Looks like the 8 yr WS drought is just too much to handle. I wonder if this is the end of their signing bonanza or is this the beginning? Wow, the AL East is going to be some sort of competitive.

Wow, I simply hate the Yankees. And yes some of that is borne out of jealously that they are very successful. Out of all of this I figure the offer to Burnett will help set the market value for Sheets. I really hope the Rays win the East for years to come...

Lastly, could this increase the possibility that Hughes will be dealt? I figure all will sign at least 4 yr deals (if they accept) and the rest of the rotation will consist of Wang and Chamberlain (or re-signing Mussina or Pettite)

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3703112

Untouchable List

Michael Cave — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:42:41 -0000

I was reading in Adam's most recent main post about not wanting to trade Chris Davis and many people keep coining the phrase "untouchable". It got me to thinking, who in the Rangers' system IS untouchable?

First, let me qualify untouchable as I see it. To me untouchable means that you will not move them unless you were offered an unrealistic deal. For example, Davis is untouchable to me however if the Phillies came by and offered Hamels then of course Id do it but that is simply not realistic. I know there is some gray area here but it is an interesting exercise. Here are mine:

Davis - I just have this feeling that he will consistently become a 40 hr guy in the .280-.300 range. With above average 1B defense and transitioning over to DH when Smoak arrives.

Kinsler - I know we call Young the FOTF but Kinsler really is now IMO. I think he finally got his national due this yr. Basically, Kinlser > Pedroia.

Hamilton - Remember this was only his second full year in the majors. Should show even more improvement as he develops the stamina to last the whole season. Perennial All-Star. Lock him up now!!

Smoak - Yes I know he was just drafted and he may move from the untouchable list to the trade for value list however in the next 3 yrs we have to see what he can do. I had a coach in college that said you could always define players with one word "If". One thing that amazes me is that no one says if smoak makes it or if he turns into this. Seemingly, everyone is convinced he will be a very quality major leaguer. Plus D also helps.

Holland - I think with him, Feliz, and Main we have our new DVD however they could be better. I mean just think about the DVD trio. They are doing very well except Diamond who has been curtailed by injuries. Of course Danks and Volquez are with other teams now, which sucks. A lefty with his ability and seemingly terrific makeup is hard to find.

Feliz - This guy could probably step in and be a serviceable short reliever. I think his ceiling is off the charts however he does carry some risk. Worst case scenario to me is that he tosses 101 out of the pen.

Main - He probably wouldnt have been on this list last year but with the reports coming from Parks, Hindman, and Newberg I just have to put him on the list. I just get this feeling he wont let himself not be great if that makes sense.

Perez - I just dont think you trade a kid that has shown this much promise this early. He is the riskiest addition to this list because of his age however I think, after reading some Arizona reports (thanks to the 3 I named above, again) I once again have this feeling that he intends to be great. Terrific stuff and projectable to boot!! And we have the luxury of moving him at a slower pace because of how logjammed the system is above him.

Two question marks:

Okay before I get burned at the stake for putting these guys on the list just let me say that these are two local favorites. I coached against Beavan a few times in a select league and I played against Teagarden in HS several times before he went on to a little bit better baseball school than I did ha.

Teagarden - With how hard this guy works, with how much pride he takes in being a true receiver (I think there is a difference between a catcher and receiver just like thrower and pitcher), and his ability to lead I think he is going to be special. I think you are looking at a multiple TRUE gold glover who hits with power will work a walk and has the leadership abilities you want in a catcher. I know that everyone is pining for a Teagarden for Buchholz deal however Im torn on that because of how valuable Teagarden is as a baseball player.

Beavan - First of all, I think his velocity returns. Being a pitcher myself I can tell you that when you change your mechanics it takes a while for those muscles to get stronger and adjust to the new motion. He will get it. That being said he really grew up this yr as a young man. Even with the diminished velocity he really pitched this year. He also pitched much better the second half. I know everyone talks about K/9 but the Rangers will regret it if we trade this kid.

I know there will be a lot of arguments over Teagarden and Beavan that is why I am personally waffling on them as true untouchables. If I were JD and Teagarden for Buchholz was on the table, I dont know what I would do. Now there may be a few guys that yall personally think dont belong or do belong but this is my current list of untouchables. Lastly, I have been a Rangers fan for life and the system has never been this good, NEVER.