SB Nation User Blog: azibuck

Bucs Dugout is dead, long live Bucs Dugout (fantasy)

azibuck — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:02:57 -0000

http://www.bucsdugout.com/2008/3/15/163346/764

After nearly running away with the regular season title, Charlie's team faltered late but held off the contenders to win the regular season title in the Bucs Dugout H2H fantasy baseball league. Alas, the faltering carried over into the playoffs and Charlie's squad was bounced by JimBibbySweat.

Charlie beat me both times in the regular season, but my lame squad came on in the last few weeks to secure the 6th and final playoffs spot. I won my quarter- and semifinal matches and now face JimBibbySweat in the finals.

Looking back at that link, my draft sucked, but the exceptions were standouts, like Sabathia, Lincecum, and Nate. The bit players I got in the middle-late rounds led my late charge, like Ethier and Overbay. I traded Shields for Aubrey Huff which was as key as anything else.

Congrats on a great season Charlie. I'm not sure I have a definite preference for roto or H2H. Liked them both. I'm pretty certain I'd be good but out of the running if we did roto this year, so I like that aspect of H2H. But I'll probably get pummelled in the finals and will feel just as bad.

Daniel McCutchen Unimpressive, Yet Somewhat Encouraging

azibuck — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:32:57 -0000

Dan McCutchen can pitch a little bit. His fastball sits at 91-93. He threw 30 pitches those speeds, and 15 of those were 92. He threw 93mph on his 99th pitch before striking out Brock Peterson with an excellent change. He topped out at 95 (once) and threw 94 a handful of times. He got 16 swings and misses and most were on his low-80s change. He also threw a high-70s breaking ball. He threw strikes. I'm not disappointed Dan McCutchen is in the Pirates system. I don't think he's long for AAA, which is good because he's 25. It's not that I think he'll be super good, just that the talent in the org won't hold him back and he has the stuff to get a shot. I think he just needs some more refinement, probably with his fastball location.

He gave up back to back HR to two lefties, Howie Clark and minor league vet Garrett Jones. Fastball to Clark, breaking ball to Jones who destroyed it. After a mound visit, he retired the next three batters. He reminded me of pretty much all the Twins pitchers not named Liriano that have come through Rochester the last few years, Scott Baker in particular. Low 90's fastball, good stuff but nothing that really wows you. Baker got to the majors faster but has been a league average starter most of the time.

Kind of like his stuff and performance, I don't have much else *concrete* to report. He looked good, not great. The change looks like a plus pitch as 13 of the 16 swinging strikes were on the change.

Note: I just went and read WTM's D. McCutchen page for the first time, which basically says more concisely what I just wrote, but I'll leave it anyway. I wanted to know if McCutchen was throwing a curve or slider. Often, depending on where I sit, I'm not sure whether a guy is throwing a curve, slider or change, especially if their breaking stuff doesn't have severe downward movement. But sitting close today I was able to clearly make out the pitch types. Unfortunately, I noticed something else and I don't think it's good, but maybe someone can comment on it.

First of all, on his very first pitch, the guy I thought of was Wade Miller--throwing with a lot of arm, and across his body at that. I predicted surgery for Miller so much it became a running joke between a friend and me. I was finally right, but Miller had a few excellent years before it happened. We can only hope the same, at least, for McCutchen.

Second, I don't know if I can call it a "tell", but I was able to tell what he threw by watching his delivery. The change and fastball looked the same, though I could tell he slowed his arm down a bit. To a batter it may have been imperceptible as I was viewing from behind the dugout and it just may have been more obvious from that angle. But it looked to me like he really cut off his delivery on the curve. He doesn't seem to finish the pitch and stops his arm quickly. I've read that this is very bad for the arm.

This is a comment from another thread, but my thought on Andrew McCutchen is that he's underwhelming. He had a pretty bad game today, 1-4 with a walk. But the outs were two strikeouts and a GIDP with the game on the line. He smoked one ball in the three games I saw. A bullet off the wall in LF, but it bounced right to the LF and Cutch was thrown out at 2nd. He otherwise didn’t hit the ball with authority and had plenty of swings and misses. Six in the three games I saw, and he wasn’t facing any pitcher of note. Even his fielding wasn’t great. Twice he broke back on balls that landed in front of him, though both were day games for what that’s worth, though the sun never seemed to bother him.

Gorzelanny Fans Ten Red Wings Again! Otherwise Unimpressive (Only Half-joking)

azibuck — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:25:24 -0000

For perspective on that headline, you might want to read at least some of t his diary I wrote in June of 2006 when Tom Gorzelanny also struck 10 Red Wings.

Basically, he threw harder then, and harder more often. I found my game chart from that 2006 game, and first of all, he threw 94mph twice even though in that diary I wrote that he topped out at 93. But here are some contrasts, and you can make up your own mind about their meaning:

Pitches thrown
August 10, 2008 -- 90
June 14, 2006 -- 100

Pitches 90mph or faster:
2008 -- 9, topping out at 92. 90 total pitches thrown.
2006 -- 42, topping out at 94. 100 total pitches thrown.

Pitches 87-89mph
2008 -- 33
2006 -- 17

Pitches 84-86*
2008 -- 16
2006 -- 5

*Today, those were pretty clearly fastballs, 10 coming in the first two innings. In 2006, 3 of the 5 were breaking balls. In 2006 he sat at 91-92 and his offspeed stuff was 78-79, he was consistently in these ranges. In 2008, he was 88-89 with his fastball, 80-82 with his breaking stuff. In addition to the lost velocity, I don't think the narrowing of the gap between his pitch types is a good thing at all.

Still, the raw numbers would seem to say he was roughly equally dominant in both games. Similar to the defense discussions going on about Nate McLouth, I have to rely on my eyes. The gun could have been off either night. Or it could be a different gun entirely. In the interest of full disclosure, it only intermittently gave readings in the 8th inning. But I believe in velocity and from my experience I trust the Frontier Field gun.

All I can say is he wowed me in 2006. He just pounded fastballs at 92, 92, 92. Today, 88, 89, and occasionally mixing in some Morrisesque 85's. Maybe it was the expectation of (hopefully) seeing 2006 form again makes this just slightly disappointing. Maybe it was the knowledge that he struggled this year, and that Tracy misused him (I hate the term abuse in this context, but feel free to use it), that did bias me as I kept looking at the pitch speeds. Maybe it was just watching the game because there's also this:

2008 -- 5 hits, 4 OF flyouts.
2006 -- 2 hits, 2 outfield flyouts, one I wrote as "soft liner".

So all I can say is it felt different, and not in a good way. The Pirates can use a guy who can pitch, but enthusiasm from last year's 14-win season probably ought to be tempered, at least for rest of this season. I doubt he can rediscover top form this year. Maybe with another offseason of rest.

I don't want to waste a lot of time on Marino Salas. He was OK. Strangely, he threw 93 warming up, but never topped 91 in the game. And it wasn't a fluke. When he entered the game and warmed up the first time, I was jacked. He looked angry and he was bringing it. Then a batter came up and he really looked like he backed off. It was weird. After that warmup I was ready to see 95+ and I saw 91. I should know this about Pirates bullpen guys -- when I expect more, I should expect less.

Finally, the player that has really stood out so far for me is Mr. Excitement. I noted the other night his miscommunication with Andrew McCutchen (though Cutch was the CF). He was also picked off that game, badly. He was doubled off 2B Saturday night. Today he lost a ball in the sun, I think. It was a high fly that he was camped under and didn't even touch. Strangely, this is marked as the 3-run "double on a fly ball to CF Andrew McCutchen" in the game recap. Trust me, McCutchen was not involved at all in the play, but he picked the ball up so that's how it was scored. And on a later adventure that Morgan caught, a guy a few rows back said, "That left fielder doesn't know what the hell he's doing." Day game tomorrow too, Mr. E.

Ohlendorf Throws 99mph; Otherwise Unimpressive

azibuck — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:37:17 -0000

I watched Ross Ohlendorf lose to the Rochester Red Wings tonight and left intrigued, and hopeful, but not really impressed. He threw serious gas, and wasn't wild, but he was pretty hittable. It's esoteric and unprovable, but he looked, well, like he didn't know how to pitch. Thrower, not a pitcher, that kind of look.

He threw 22 pitches in the first inning, 11 strikes, 11 balls, only one swing and miss. But he was just getting warmed up. I missed two of the velocities in the inning, but watching the pitches I can confidently say he didn't throw anything offspeed until the 14th pitch of the inning. All the fastballs wouldn't be so bad, except he wasn't commanding it, and later showed a pretty good breaking ball, getting a bunch of swings and misses in the 2nd and 3rd innings. His fastball went from 92 (once) to 96mph. He gave up a bouncer up the middle for a single, and a sharp grounder to LF for a single. After picking the runner off 2B, Garrett Jones smoked Ohly's first pitch, a 96mph fastball, toward first. It broke Mike Cuddyer's foot.

In the 2nd inning Ohlendorf started really letting it fly, but that might not have been so smart. Again I had him down for only two offspeed pitches out of 21 total. His fastball went from 93 (once) to 99. But check this sequence to 22 year-old Trevor Plouffe, the Twins' 1st round pick in 2004:

98 (ball), 96 (strike), 99 (strike), 97 (ball), 94 (foul), 96--double to the gap. It looked to me like Plouffe had him timed. He was just behind the next to last pitch, and was pretty clearly sitting dead red on the last, Plouffe drilled it.

Ohlendorf gave up a single because Nyjer Morgan and Andrew McCutchen didn't communicate and let the ball drop between them when it looked like either could have taken it. He ended the inning by (finally) throwing an 84mph curve to get Jason Pridie swinging.

Ohlendorf retired the side in the 3rd on 13 pitches, 10 strikes. Like a message from the baseball Gods, six of the pitches were offspeed, and three of those were swings and misses. One was a called strike, and the other two were put in play for a soft fly to left and a routine 4-3 grounder. He dialed the fastball back down to 93-94 most of the inning, only once hitting 96.

In the 4th, he gave up two hits and got two strikeouts. But again, it was his offspeed stuff that got batters out. I had him for seven offspeed pitches in the inning, four of them called strikes, and another one swinging for a K. He clearly can throw it for strikes. Again, the fastball sat at 93-94 most of the inning, once hitting 97. But again Plouffe doubled, and again it was drilled like he knew it was coming. This one was only 93 so he had no trouble catching up to it. And why wouldn't he? Plouffe saw 9 pitches his first two AB, all fastballs.

Ohlendorf appeared to be tiring in the 5th, with his fastball sitting 91-92, and he threw mostly breaking balls. He got into trouble with two singles to lead off the inning, but again was bailed out by bad baseball by the Wings. By the way, one single was possibly because Mr. Excitement slipped to the ground and had to then let the ball drop in front of him. It was a liner, but he lost all chance to make the play by spinning his wing tips out of the blocks. With runners on 1st and 2nd, Serge Santos bunted the first pitch into the air in foul ground on the 3rd base side. Neil Walker made a spectacular lay-out dive for the putout (seriously great play), and he easily doubled the runner off first who had gone all the way to second for some reason. Garrett Jones then saw all offspeed--four pitches--but finally figured that out and lined a hard single to right to score a run. He inexplicably went to 2nd on the throw, which was low and right to the cutoff man who wasn't more than 15 feet from first base. A brief rundown and suddenly Ohlendorf was out of the inning in 11 pitches. He really only retired only one batter in the inning.

In the 6th, I... well, look, I was at the game with two eight year-olds and a five year-old, and I needed a beer. And the only decent beer at Frontier Field is Brooklyn Pennant, but you can only get it at the bar at the end of the LF stands. We started out completely opposite that and I was lucky to see the inning as I strolled the walkway between the upper and lower stands on the way back to the RF knoll. He was still throwing 93-94, and the inning ended with a drive to RCF that Matt Kata barely ran down at the wall, hit by, guess who? Trevor Plouffe.

Evan Meek looked pretty good (but...) in the 7th and 8th. 23 of 31 pitches were strikes, and his fastball sat mostly at 93-95 in the 7th, and 94-96 in the 8th, once also hitting 99. But that was the weird thing about Meek when he was with Pittsburgh -- his fastball varied in speed a lot. It would be nice if I thought he was doing it intentionally, or was mixing in a cutter, but the complete inconsistency in velocity makes me think he's just got mechanical issues still to work out. Even here, he threw 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 99. Nine different speeds in 25 fastballs. And it wasn't something where he was just building up the velocity as he hit six of those speeds in his last 11 pitches. He threw well though, he was behind only one batter and threw a pretty good breaking ball in the 78-82mph range. Five of six offspeed pitches were strikes. The only hit he gave up was a single that Garrett Jones was very late on but grounded it just fair inside 3B.

I'm hoping to go to at least two of the final three games, so I'm reluctant to say any more than this about McCutchen -- he didn't see more than a couple fastballs, and looked bad swinging over breaking balls, twice for Ks.

Walker didn't look lost or anything, but didn't seem very confident either. Again, I want to get a few more looks.

Edit: I can't believe I forgot to note the Mr. Excitement hit the first pitch of the game just over the rail near the foul pole in RF for his first HR at any level this year. In the Olympic spirit I think it shouldn't count because it was wind-aided.

Minor League Notes -- torturing myself

azibuck — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:13:14 -0000

I like to keep track of "what could have been." It's unhealthy. I look back at the life I've lived much more than how I want to live the rest of it. Anyway, so it is with baseball. I follow guys the PBC traded away, and now I can also follow guys we could have traded for. It seems pretty certain that we could have had Phil Coke and George Kontos instead of Karstens (vomit) and McCutchen.

This post is obviously ill-timed and will probably be ignored, but just because we made a good trade doesn't mean everything else in the world stopped.

George Kontos 1-hit (our crappy) Altoona Curve tonight. He fanned 13 and walked only one.

I'm one of the few that thought Coke was interesting, and I'll slap a quarter down right now and bet he's in NY this year. Small sample but since moving to the bullpen he's given up 1 hit in two appearances and whiffed 3 in 3 innings.

Bryan Bullington is still giving up runs, but in Buffalo he's struck out 20 and walked only 2 in 16 innings. In two relief appearances covering 7 innings he's struck out 10 and walked 1. He may never amount to anything, but I still don't understand why we didn't exhaust all possibilities with him.

And Todd Redmond.

Players getting smaller slice of the pie

azibuck — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:14:26 -0000

Note to RichieHebner, BD commenter -- I know we've gone at it, but I respect you and what you say. My only gripe was that you seemed to say the same thing over and over, regardless of what Huntington/Coonelly said or did.

RichieHebner wrote that the Pirates were Coonelly's and MLB's petri dish. That they were going to try to win on the cheap. I can't figure out how to search the archives or I'd quote him directly. The point, I think, was something along the lines of, if not breaking the union, at least gaining greater control back from it. With that in mind, I present the following from a story in the Tribune-Review. I think the petri dish experimenting and union-controlling has already begun:

"The sport is not necessarily a loser for owners, though. According to Forbes, Major League Baseball's profits increased 7.7 percent last year to $5.5 billion. The magazine estimates the average team is worth $472 million, a one-year hike of 9.5 percent...

Where is all that money going? Not necessarily to the players. According to Forbes, player costs in Major League Baseball (salaries, bonuses and benefits) have fallen over the past five years from 66 percent of revenue to 56 percent."

I think RichieHebner might be right, but the idea of holding costs down is not unique to the Pirates or Coonelly, apparently. I think the union will have to stop crying collusion if the owners can convince the media (or maybe the courts) that they are not colluding, more of them are simply growing their own and not involving themselves in suicidal bidding wars.

If the union can be convinced of that, they might become more interested in a salary cap of sorts. Salary caps mean salary floors. In the NFL, the players are guaranteed, I believe, 70% of revenues. If baseball players are only getting 56%, they'll want a bigger piece of the pie. But it might have to be on the owners terms, or at least at the control of the owners.

Just so I'm (hopefully) clear, I brought RichieHebner up because I think he's right, and since I've been vociferous with my arguments with him, I wanted to set it straight that it wasn't because of what he was saying.

The difference between 70 and 82

azibuck — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:02:11 -0000

In Bull Durham Crash Davis said the difference between .250 and .300 was "just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp… you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes… you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week..."

I know we didn't even win 70 games last year, and 82 itself doesn't mean anything really, so in a sense who cares what the difference is. But, to paraphrase Crash Davis, the difference between a miserable 16th losing season in a row and a winning team is two wins a month. One game when your closer doesn't blow a save without letting a ball out of the infield (Torres, v. Milwaukee I think). One game where your manager doesn't bring in Marty McLeary with the bases loaded.

And so on. I intended to go through last season and find 12 games that could be perceived as being thrown away by Pittsburgh, but I don't have the energy right now and wanted to post this. Yes -- I know the same difference applies to 70 and 58! But I wonder if Huntington isn't including Tracy and DL on his list of underachievers from last year. Maybe he thinks Russell is worth just five more wins. If a pitcher was an underachiever, especially Duke or Maholm, and they get even a little better, I can see reason for optimism.

And maybe Huntington thinks he is bold enough to have his cake and eat it too. To make deals without giving up completely in 2008. I didn't intend this to answer Charlie's post about the article in the PG, I'm just using that phrase here too.

Really, I'm not even that optimistic about this season, but I do daydream sometimes, and when I do, everything goes right.

I guess my point is that I do think we're closer to 82 wins than most other people think, but the difference between 82 and 90 is much greater than the difference between 82 and 70, or even 65. And if the org wants to shoot for 82 this year, and still make deals with an eye toward 90+ down the road, I don't think it's that unrealistic.

Paul "Scoop" Meyer

azibuck — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:30:30 -0000

From Yahoo:

>Mar 20 Paulino (pinched nerve) was placed on the 15-day DL Wednesday, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Recommendation: Paulino won't be able to throw for at least a month and could be out for an additional two or three months once he can pick up a baseball.

Did everyone know this? I swear I never heard a thing. A Q about Paulino even led off Dejan's Q&A this morning, and no mention. He'd never say anything, but what do you suppose DK feels like telling Meyer when something like this happens? It's not earth-shaking news, but Jesus, it impacts a big question going into this season.

Josh Fogg, Shawn Chacon, and the Non-Dominant Pitcher

azibuck — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:55:33 -0000

Over at WHYGAVS, Pat mentions Shawn Chacon leaving, with this comment:

"Fun aside for everyone that misses Josh Fogg: aside from win/loss record (which is terribly arbitrary), Chacon's career numbers are pretty similar to Fogg's. And he's younger!" I'm not setting out to prove anyone right or wrong, or to defend either of these guys. But I had been looking at Fogg's numbers at BBRef during the playoffs and was just trying to see what was there.

I present this because it interested me, and hopefully you.

Fogg and Chacon have arrived at their career figures quite differently. I'm not going to go in depth with their stats, just use ERA+ to try and show... something.

Chacon's ERA+ by year, and yeah, he was a reliever a lot, but here it is:

2001 105
2002 83
2003 108
2004 69
2005 131
2006 71
2007 110

And now Fogg's:

2002 97
2003 83
2004 93
2005 84
2006 89
2007 97

Fogg tops out at 97 (twice), but never lower than 83. Chacon is clearly in a good year bad year pattern, so can we stop the relentless bashing and get him back in 2009? (smiley face here) But seriously, if they're so replaceable, they wouldn't keep getting (well-paying) jobs. And the notion of replacability seems to be at the core of the criticism of them, and I don't think it applies well to Fogg.

When I was browsing Fogg's figs, I started looking at game logs. I wanted to look at innings pitched and runs allowed. It's known that he's not going to K many guys, and he will walk some, and I'm not interested in his dominance, just his effectiveness.

Fogg, in what we all probably think was a pretty bad 2005, gave the Pirates 11 umambiguously good starts, 8 unambiguously bad ones, and 9 mediocre ones. The team went 9-19 in those starts. I used old-school, quick and dirty benchmarks. 6 IP and 3 runs or less was good. 5/3 was mediocre, 5/2 was good. If he didn't go five it was bad, regardless of runs. The point was, did the team (forgetting the offense generated) have a reasonable chance to win when he left the game, based on how he pitched. If you disagree with the metrics, do your own diary, I won't get into a hair-splitting contest in the comments.

So in 2005, 20/29 starts were good or mediocre. For perspective, in 2002, 24/33 were good or mediocre, and in 2007, it was only 18/29. Yet most people would probably consider 2007 his best year.

Looking at his starts points out a problem I have when most people evaluate this type of pitcher. All pitchers get compared to some sort of gold standard, like Johan Santana. But there are always guys who are effective who don't K a lot, and BB more than you'd like. It's pointless to look at Fogg's Game Scores, for example. Even on his best day, he'll give up more baserunners, and whiff far fewer than other Game Score kings. And while we look at hitters' splits (L/R), starting pitchers really don't get that luxury. The stats are there, but they must face the whole lineup anyway.

Fogg and other non-dominant pitchers may have some sort of platoon-like advantage over certain types of teams or hitters. I also wouldn't discount the umpire effect. Fogg might be a dragon slayer -- if the home plate ump is generous with his strike zone. And most teams, especially NL teams, are not dragons. If I had the ability (and desire, and time), I'd do a full-blown research project on it.

This is going to sound like veteranosity, and I don't mean it to. Sort of. Er, well, I guess I sorta do. At some point, some pitchers that don't have filthy stuff just "get it." They understand how to pitch. They are effective, but with limits. And Fogg is one of the better of this type, because he's consistent. His fluctuations in ERA are due to subtle changes in the number of good/bad/mediocre starts. But basically, in 66% of his starts he gives his team a chance to win. Some years it may be closer to 60%, other years closer to 70%. And a particularly horrendous outing or two might skew his season numbers further, because it's unlikely he'll have a particularly dominant outing or two to offset it.

So what? So... I think Fogg has value, and that Fogg might = Matt Morris. The number of poor outings they produce is large enough, and sometimes come in spurts, so that we might over-focus on the bad. The trick is paying Fogg what he's worth, and that's way above the minimum, but well below Mo(rris) money. And I don't want to debate Fogg's salary either. I'm just saying he may not be as fungible as some think.

Bixler, Bayliss, and Torres -- Indy v. Rochester

azibuck — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:37:34 -0000

I'm a little worried about Brian Bixler.

The Red Wings crossed me up and started last night's game at 6:35 instead of 7:05, so I missed Bixler's first AB, when he singled. I did get to see two K's and a weak bounceout, and he looked bad doing that.

I wonder if he hasn't been figured out somewhat. I looked up his numbers at milb.com and his average has gone down every month, and his K-rate has gone up. He drew a lot of walks in June (16), but even with that, his OPS dropped:

OPS by month:

April: .884
May: .854
June: .823
July: .633

He's 300 AB into his AAA career and not really pounding down the door to the bigs. His overall numbers are still good, but his recent performance looks more like a trend than a slump to me.

Bayliss wasn't impressive. He was especially disappointing relative to when I saw him in Rochester last year and wrote this diary.

He gave up a flyball out, a walk, a deep flyout, and then had his runner cut down stealing in his one inning. But tracking his velocity was interesting when compared to last year.

In the game last year, he threw his fastball 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 94 mph. Even better, his change was 77, 78, and 84. That produced two K's, two groundouts, and a short flyout.

Last night, here were his velocities:

92, 92, 82, 82, 92, 82, 90, 89, 90, 89, 82.

No more than 10 mph difference between fastball and change, and kind of rhythmic. Compare that to the 14-17mph difference in 2006.

He's a flyball pitcher, but extremely so this year.

Like a lot of relievers, maybe he's just having a down year. But he seems to have lost the feel for changing speeds dramatically, which made him so effective in 2006. I was mildly encouraged by him last year. This year, he looks like JAG (just another guy).

Torres was sharp, giving up only a double down the RF line to a smoking-hot Brian Buscher and fanning three. 10 of his 21 pitches were either 93 or 94mph. I wouldn't bother with another rehab appearance, he looks ready now.