Showing posts with label pitching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pitching. Show all posts

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Debunking Dillon

Today, a quick look at Dillon Gee and the expectations being heaped upon him for the upcoming season. First, a look at the expectations:
NY Daily News: After Mike Pelfrey, Jon Niese and R.A. Dickey, Dillon Gee is the best internal option. The righthander impressed in a September callup, and the Mets hope he can secure a rotation spot

Bleacher Report: He could be the potential workhorse and innings-eater the Mets need...

Metsblog: So, if it comes down to Misch or Dillon Gee, I prefer Gee... Gee had more balanced results than Misch last year, he’s younger, and I think he has a slightly higher ceiling that Misch

NY Baseball Digest: Gee is certainly not a top of the rotation ace like Santana, nor does he have the potential of Mike Pelfrey, but Gee showed some moxie during his brief call up ... I can see Gee throwing 175 innings next year, winning 10 games, and pitching to a 4.50 ERA.


We at Fonzie Forever like to pride ourselves on staying a step ahead of the curve. We were really excited about Jon Niese before his sterling 2010 debut. On the eve of his first start, we pointed out how quietly successful he had been through the minors. We later followed up by comparing him favorably with Wade Davis, a highly touted prospect on the Rays. Another outside the box profile was Jordany Valdespin before he became a household name among Mets prospect mavens.

The big one, and the subject of this article, is Dillon Gee. We profiled Gee in April of last season and pointed out that he had quietly been performing well at each level of the minors:
Gee was drafted out of the 22nd round (unspectacular) and was assigned to short-season Class-A Brooklyn for his minor league debut (unspectacular). He pitched well there, but by the start of the 2008 season, he was a 22-year-old in Port St. Lucie -- nothing to get too excited about. [But] at what point do we have to look at Gee's performances and say to ourselves that he deserves a second look? From the start of the 2008 season and onward, he has been great - doing nothing to dispel the notion that he could someday prove to be a very good major league pitcher.
Gee, as we all know, earned a call up from Triple-A Buffalo late last year and shone in his major league debut. Here's how his last two seasons have looked:

Minors Career - A/AA/AAA - 3.76 ERA, 7.96 K/9, 1.90 BB/9, 1.18 WHIP
2009 - Buffalo - AAA - 48 innings, 4.10 ERA, 2.63 K/BB, 1.30 WHIP
2010 - Buffalo - AAA - 161 innings, 4.96 ERA, 4.02 K/BB, 1.33 WHIP
2010 - Mets - MLB/AAA - 33 innings, 2.18 ERA, 1.13 K/BB, 1.21 WHIP

Pretty good performances in Triple-A, and then a spectacularly successful 33 inning cameo in the major leagues. It is those last 33 innings that are the driving force behind those who think that Gee is already prepared to be an adequate major league pitcher. But is Gee the pitcher that fans of the major league squad saw in September? Is he as good as his career minor league stats might indicate? Or is an ERA approaching 5.00 as he showed last season in Buffalo more accurate?

Unfortunately for the Mets, I think Gee's late success last year took his stock from grossly underrated to somewhat overrated. New York is a funny place (Rex Ryan foot video, anyone?). In my opinion, Gee is probably much closer to a 4.96 ERA in Triple-A kind of pitcher than anything else, and here's why:

1. His major league stats last year appeared to be the result of some *fantastic* luck. Gee's peripherals in his short New York cameo were not good - for instance, his strikeout to walk ratio of 17-15, and he struck out less than 5 batters per nine innings. According to Fangraphs, his batting average on balls in play was an extremely fortunate .232, when in the long run it should end up somewhere in the neighborhood of .300 or a little higher. He managed to strand on base over 80% of the runners he allowed, which is a high number. And he allowed home runs on less than 5% of his fly balls.

For those in the sabermetric crowd, that's almost a "perfect game" of luck - everything broke his way. Granted, it was only 33 innings, and you can't put too much stock into such a small sample size - but that is exactly my point as well. Those 33 innings tell you almost nothing, and since Gee appears to be the beneficiary of some great luck, he is unlikely to be nearly as good in the future.

2. His stuff doesn't dominate you. Gee gets by with a fastball that averaged 89.1 MPH last season, along with a change and slider. He managed to get a very good amount of ground balls (47%), and I don't have access to minorleaguesplits.com right now (site broken) but I imagine that ground balls are an important part of his game. Even assuming that he can continue to get batters to pound the ball into the ground, not having good 'stuff' will catch up with you in the upper minors and the Show. Yes, a lot of pitchers get by with 89 mile per hour fastballs -- but a lot of those guys are lefthanded, or struggled for years, or have great secondary offerings. Gee can succeed as a righthander with that kind of repertoire (Greg Maddux was throwing 85 at the end of his Braves tenure) but these guys tend to be the exceptions, not the rule.

3. His career minor league stats are aided by the 127 innings he spent in Single-A as a 22-year-old beating up on inferior competition. We won't even mention the 62 innings he dominated at short season Brooklyn after he graduated college. The only work of Gee's that should have much probative weight in guessing how he'll be in the major leagues is his work in Double and Triple-A, where his results were mixed.

None of this is to say that I don't think Dillon Gee won't be a useful major league player, or that I doubt he could even someday develop into a good pitcher in the #3 or #4 type mold. But I've seen this all before: crafty right-hander climbs up through the Mets minors, not overpowering stuff, but excellent strikeout-to-walk ratios. Except this player? He was even better, and even younger, than Gee. His name?

Yusmeiro Petit. I used to think that Petit was one of the best pitching prospects on the planet. He posted K/9 figures of 12 or better at FOUR consecutive minor league stops. He pitched in Double-A Binghamton as a 20 year old and posted a WHIP of 0.92(!) with a 2.91 ERA. But he didn't pass the eye test for some, and scouts didn't like him at the higher levels. I didn't care though - and in retrospect lost many an argument about it. I thought, "So what if his stuff is no good? If anything, he can make up for it with control and with his great instinct for pitching."

Lo and behold, Petit got crushed by better competition - unlike lower minors batters who he could strike out at ease, the more talented competition could take him yard seemingly at will. He possesses a career major league ERA of 5.58 and I think is seeking work. Incidentally, Petit's fastball was clocked at 88.7 when he broke into the major leagues.

For this reason, I think Gee has become overrated. I liked him last year as a future potential contributor, but in the last season, his stock has actually dropped in my mind. He went from a guy posting a 3.00 ERA and a 5-to-1 strikeout-to-walk in the low minors to a guy with an ERA between 4 and 5 in the high minors, and I consider that a warning sign.

As I said, there is no reason to believe that Gee CAN'T improve and take his game up to the level that the general population seems to think it should be -- I just doubt it. Even guys who you might consider to be soft-tossing righties can usually crack 90 miles per hour.

That's why I'd like to see Pat Misch be given the first crack at the #5 starter spot this spring. But if Gee can become another Scott Baker, or Jeff Suppan, or John Garland, then great.

Friday, May 21, 2010

On to the Next One...

I apologize for the infreuqency, brevity, and otherwise stinkiness of my posts lately. I started a new job at the end of March and, well, it's been rough to say the last (in a good way). It's not that I don't have ideas for things to write about, I just usually can't give it the treatment it deserves.

Before starting, I'd like to point out that you may have noticed a new blogger posting here recently. That's Danielle. Say hi! (Hi, Danielle). I don't have to tell you she's been doing a great job, so thanks for being our Angel Pagan and being the only one producing for us right now. Sadly, I think this might make me Jeff Francoeur.

Roger? He's Jason Bay (Canadian). Tonight, just a quick blurb again.


Did you know that by this time tomorrow, thanks to our "Maine Break", we will essentially have started RA Dickey, Raul Valdez, and Hisanori Takahashi in three consecutive games?

With the uncertainty that the Mets faced with Pelfrey, Perez, and Maine in the rotation, we at Fonzie Forever (I guess me) worked long and hard to convince the Mets that bringing in a starter, even a proven mediocrity, would be a better move than signing Jason Bay to a mega-deal because of the needs of this particular team.

So far, unfortunately, we've been proven mostly right.

Of Pelfrey, Maine, and Perez, I figured that, in general, our best bet would be to expect one improvement, one average performance, and one flame out. But even with that, and with Niese holding his own, that required another starter. And then another for when the inevitable injury struck.

Turns out, Pelfrey stepped his game up while Maine and Perez both faltered. Now we are left with two legitimate holes in the rotation, in addition to Jon Niese's injury and struggles. Hence, Dickey-Valdez-Takahashi.

Not to disparage any of those three. They have all pitched very well this year. But are they long term solutions? Can we expect to keep them up? No and no, I think.

Joel Piniero is currently sporting a 3.71 ERA in the American League. Jon Garland is at a 2.38 ERA, but that won't last because of his peripherals. Still, though, a 2.38 ERA is what it is - and it'd be nice to have seen that kind of pitching here in the early going of this year. Jason Marquis, the third of the mid-range options, is injured. So once again, very much a crap shoot among similar options.

In any event, if the Mets had any real designs on being competitive this year, they were absolute fools when it came to their plan for the starting rotation - which, incidentally, is the most important part of the ballclub. If the Mets didn't plan on competing, they were fools for throwing all that money at Jason Bay and then backloading the contract. They find themselves in the middle of the road, pants around their ankles.

So, we're left to ponder, with Gary, Keith, and Ron. And read funny and/or interesting recaps by Danielle. Ah hell. That's not so bad. I love baseball.

---------
I promise in the future to come back to this topic. I have in the past (but cannot find it) written about the importance of starters 6, 7, and 8 on any club which has plans of contending. And guys way smarter than me have done studies on it. Yes, often times clubs which succeed are the ones who have great pitching and great luck with health. But just as often, they are teams who have a great swingman, or a veteran tucked away at Triple-A, or a stud prospect who they didn't want to rush but is knocking down the door. Baseball seasons are long, and human beings were not made to throw overhand. But more on this some other day.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

A Rotation Rotation and Musings on Velocity

Per Metsblog:

According to Marty Noble of MLB.com, a person with knowledge of the Mets pitching plans says they might move Jon Niese to the third spot in the rotation, with Maine and Perez to follow.

…if this were the case, then it looks like Pelfrey would remain in the number two spot in the rotation…either way, it appears the Mets are at least recognizing the problems behind Johan Santana in the rotation…

Original Post, 6:41 pm:

Adam Rubin of ESPN New York says Mike Pelfrey will not be starting the second game of the season against the Marlins at Citi Field.

…interesting…i wonder if John Maine will get the start over Pelfrey, and what this means for the rest of the rotation…

Pelfrey is expected to start on Friday night against the Rays at Tropicana Field, followed by Oliver Perez and Jon Niese on Saturday against the Orioles in Sarasota.

In addition, Rubin says both Omir Santos and Fernando Martinez will start the season at Triple-A Buffalo.

To follow Rubin at his new Twitter account for ESPN New York, click here.

As far as I can tell this is a non-story. It just looks to me that Manuel wanted to break up the lefties in the rotation. If the original rotation was Santana-Pelfrey-Maine-Perez-Niese, you'd have three lefties in a row. Now, it alternates. You'll still have two lefties in a row later in the year when you stop skipping the #5 spot in the rotation, but at least the second lefty will be Santana.

However, the blurb about the order of the rotation got me thinking. Provided Santana, Pelfrey, Maine, Ollie, and Niese are the five starters - is this the hardest throwing group of Mets starters we've ever seen? I decided to take a look at some average fastball velocities by year. Thank you as always, fangraphs.

Last year we had Livan Hernandez in the rotation instead of Niese, so they automatically lose to the 2010 version. In 2007 the staff was anchored by Glavine and included Orlando Hernandez in addition to the Pelfrey-Maine-Perez triumvirate. The 2006 team featured Pedro, Glavine, Trachsel, Orlando Hernandez and Maine as their top five. A quick inspection turns up no challenger in the recent years.

You might actually have to reach back a whole decade, or more (if ever) to find a Mets staff with more prodigious fastballs than this one. The 2005 team has a chance, if you remember Kris Benson or Victor Zambrano throwing particularly hard. I didn't. Benson averaged 90.2 in 2005 to my surprise, but Zambrano averaged 89.6. With Glavine, Pedro, and Kaz Ishii making up the rest of the starting five, you know they didn't bring as much heat at this year's edition.


I thought the 2002 team maybe had a chance to challenge with a bunch of one-and-done Mets in Pedro Astacio, Jeff D'Amico and Shawn Estes supplementing Trachsel and Al Leiter... but Astacio (89.6), D'Amico (87.6), and Trachsel (87) were all below my expectations. For some reason I remembered Astacio being a hard thrower - but memories fade, especially in an era of Met irrelevance.

So, with fangraphs pitch data ending at 2002, that brings us back to this year's squad. With Maine averaging 92.1 on his fastball in 2008 and 91.3 last year, he'll be around there again. Even the injured version of Oliver Perez averaged 90.0. For his career it is a robust 91.2. Although much has been made of the decline of Johan Santana, his heater averaged 90.5 last year after a season of 91.2 before that. Pelfrey leads the way at 92.6, while Niese brings up the rear at 89.6 last season.

Not that this necessarily portends a good year - throwing harder means nothing on its own - but it's something that stood out to me upon review.

------------
Note 1: I realize that injuries to intended starters might skew this - comparing our projected top five to the actual top five of previous years. But with Nelson Figueroa (88.2) and Fernando Nieve (92.2) the likely replacements, it doesn't really matter.

Note 2: I think the 2000 rotation might have had a chance if Leiter and Hampton threw a couple of miles per hour harder in their primes than they did by the time 2002 rolled around. The 1999 team with Orel Hershiser and Rick Reed taking 40% of the starts likely didn't have a chance either.

I would love for someone who has been around a little longer to take a shot at identifying a Mets' starting rotation who may have thrown as hard as this one. Maybe one of the historians over at Faith and Fear? Could Doc and Darling and El Sid bring the heat?