PDA

View Full Version : Disturbing Buehrle Trend


hold2dibber
11-13-2003, 02:44 PM
As stated in an article by Peter Gammons (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1659935) on ESPN.com today, note the following disturbing trend in Buehrle's numbers the last three years:

ERA: 3.29 ('01), 3.58 ('02), 4.13 ('03)
IP/Hs: 221/188 ('01), 239/236 ('02), 230/250 ('03)

I didn't realize he gave up so many hits last year. Yikes. Doesn't exactly bode well for '04.

FarWestChicago
11-13-2003, 02:51 PM
How did he do in the second half of the year after he quit sucking?

thepaulbowski
11-13-2003, 03:03 PM
Watching him pitch, I could not figure why hitters were having problems against him. Was it just the fact he works at a fast pace ace and challenges hitters to hit him? Are hitters starting to figure him out? I think only time will give us the answers to these questions.

eriqjaffe
11-13-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
How did he do in the second half of the year after he quit sucking?

About the same:

Pre All-Star - 7-10, 4.24 ERA, 136 IP, 145 H, 41 BB, 66 K, .275 Avg.

Post All-Star - 7-4, 4.01 ERA, 94.1 IP, 105 H, 20 BB, 53 K, .284 Avg.

The big improvement was BB/9, but everything else was about the same.

--Eriq.

nasox
11-13-2003, 04:14 PM
you (or anybody else for that matter) can analyze numbers and obscure charts and details in the offseason as much as you want, but these things can be right as hell or off a couple of miles. WE just wont know till the season actually happens how players will perform and we dont need to know because we arent KW and dont need to trade or sign or whatever players. Stats dont tell the truth IMO

hold2dibber
11-13-2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by nasox
you (or anybody else for that matter) can analyze numbers and obscure charts and details in the offseason as much as you want, but these things can be right as hell or off a couple of miles. WE just wont know till the season actually happens how players will perform and we dont need to know because we arent KW and dont need to trade or sign or whatever players. Stats dont tell the truth IMO

But as a fan who cares deeply (as sad and pathetic as that may be) about the fortunes of the team, I have an opinion about what the Sox should/should not do in the offseason and about the things they actually do. Stats don't tell the "whole truth" I agree -- but they're a great tool towards getting towards the truth.

And the truth is, Buehrle has gotten worse each of the past 2 seasons. Is the league catching up with him? Is his arm fatigued? Or is it just a fluke? Hard to say at this point - but it's certainly something KW should be keeping in mind when he determines his off season priorities (more pitching!) and has to decide whether to go to arbitration with Buehrle or make another attempt to sign him to a multi-year deal.

jeremyb1
11-14-2003, 03:09 AM
If there's anything to be concerned about its that his walks have went up three seasons in a row, not his hits.

hold2dibber
11-14-2003, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
If there's anything to be concerned about its that his walks have went up three seasons in a row, not his hits.

I find both to be disturbing. The fact that he gave up 62 more hits in just 9 more innings in '03 as compared to '01 suggests to me that he isn't fooling people like he once was. Maybe (and this is, of course, pure conjecture) he's walking more people because he doesn't trust his stuff as much due to the fact that batters are hitting him better. Of course, it also could be the opposite - that because he's lost some of his control, batters are able to tee off on him.

In either event, with Colon probably gone and no replacement of his caliber available to the Sox, it seems to me that for the Sox to be a playoff team in '04, Buehrle has to reverse the trend.

soxruleEP
11-14-2003, 09:24 AM
It seems to me that Buerhle has always been a "trouble" pitcher--that is, men get on base and he pitches out of trouble. When he gets ahead of batters early in the inning and picks up a couple quick outs, he often gives up a couple singles or a walk and a hit and then gets out of the inning.

I also think he also pitches as well as he has to in a given game. (witness his Friday night confrontation with Mulder last season--what I thought was the best game of the year as a spectator).

He is not a strike-out pitcher, but he can get a strike out when he needs one. I think he just one of those guys who is effective without being dominating.

poorme
11-14-2003, 09:46 AM
Funny with the absolute slop he throws, his ERA is about the same as Colon's.

maurice
11-14-2003, 10:55 AM
I'm not advocating this, and it doesn't work from a budget standpoint, but the following thought just crossed my mind. Reports indicate that StL is offering Edmonds to LA for Perez. If the reports are true, you surely could get Edmonds for Buerhle.

CubKilla
11-14-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by maurice
If the reports are true, you surely could get Edmonds for Buerhle.

Sounds good in theory, but St Louis wants to deal Edmonds because of his salary. Buehrle makes far less than Edmonds and JR won't take on Edmonds salary.

Maybe if we had an owner committed to winning, Edmonds would be in the plans..... especially since we need a CF.

Huisj
11-14-2003, 01:52 PM
Edmonds will stink now with the mandatory steroid testing.

indianbadger
11-14-2003, 05:42 PM
I will try to explain this anamoly. Buehrle's ERA for the last 3 seasons has been

2001 - 3.29
2002 - 3.58
2003- 4.14

His DIPS ERA for the last three years

2001- 4.23
2002- 4.12
2003- 4.2 (approx)

DIPS refers to defense Independent Pitching Statistic that was developed by a ChW fan Voros Mccracken to separate the things that a pitcher controls to the things he does not. The pitcher controls walks, strikeouts and HR(Considered a pitcher mistake), he does not control how many balls he puts in play turninto hits. The theory is that the pitcher has very minimal control over what balls put in play turn into hits.This was described in the book Moneyball, if you guys have read it already. It sounds counter intuitive but it seems statistically that the theory holds for most poitchers except knuckleballers.

As Buehrle is a groundball pitcher, his defense behind him has a lot to say on his ERA. His 2002 SS was a good one in Clayton with a range factor of 4.67 (league ave of 4.56) and a FP of .989 (League ave .975). Valentin this year was 4.63 range(good) with a .969 fielding percentage(bad). Combine this with Alomar (4.70 range (league 4.94))(Bad), the fielders had no range and thus could not get to many groundballs that were converted into outs by Clayton the previous year.

As Buehrle has shown consistency with his DIPS ERA for the last three years, his ability has not eroded. If his fielders do a better job for him next year, his ERA will go down again. I know this is a stat oriented reply, but it is a credible reason for Buehrle's performance this year. Hope this contributes to the discussion.

poorme
11-14-2003, 06:54 PM
You calculated his 2003 DIPS ERA?

Huisj
11-14-2003, 07:43 PM
if he's walking more guys and striking out fewer (more balls hit into play), how does his 2003 DIPS come out to what you have there?

crector
11-14-2003, 10:27 PM
What this goes to show is just how dumb Buehrle was to reject the Sox's proffered 5 yr. contract for 25 Mil. before this season started.

Daver
11-14-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by crector
What this goes to show is just how dumb Buehrle was to reject the Sox's proffered 5 yr. contract for 25 Mil. before this season started.

He didn't turn down a 25 mil contract,he turned down a 13 mil contract with 12 mil in incentives.

hold2dibber
11-14-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by indianbadger
I will try to explain this anamoly. Buehrle's ERA for the last 3 seasons has been

2001 - 3.29
2002 - 3.58
2003- 4.14

His DIPS ERA for the last three years

2001- 4.23
2002- 4.12
2003- 4.2 (approx)

DIPS refers to defense Independent Pitching Statistic that was developed by a ChW fan Voros Mccracken to separate the things that a pitcher controls to the things he does not. The pitcher controls walks, strikeouts and HR(Considered a pitcher mistake), he does not control how many balls he puts in play turninto hits. The theory is that the pitcher has very minimal control over what balls put in play turn into hits.This was described in the book Moneyball, if you guys have read it already. It sounds counter intuitive but it seems statistically that the theory holds for most poitchers except knuckleballers.

As Buehrle is a groundball pitcher, his defense behind him has a lot to say on his ERA. His 2002 SS was a good one in Clayton with a range factor of 4.67 (league ave of 4.56) and a FP of .989 (League ave .975). Valentin this year was 4.63 range(good) with a .969 fielding percentage(bad). Combine this with Alomar (4.70 range (league 4.94))(Bad), the fielders had no range and thus could not get to many groundballs that were converted into outs by Clayton the previous year.

As Buehrle has shown consistency with his DIPS ERA for the last three years, his ability has not eroded. If his fielders do a better job for him next year, his ERA will go down again. I know this is a stat oriented reply, but it is a credible reason for Buehrle's performance this year. Hope this contributes to the discussion.

First of all, welcome aboard! :smile:

Second, great and helpful post.

Third, maybe it's because it's late, maybe it's because I've been boozing it up, but I don't quite get it. In particular, MB's increasing walk rate doesn't seem to be accounted for in your analysis. Am I missing something?

poorme
11-15-2003, 10:33 AM
His HR allowed was slightly lower this year.

indianbadger
11-15-2003, 10:42 AM
I had to search around the net to get the three DIPS ERA's. I did not calculate MB's 2003 DIPS ERA. I think the newest from of DIPS is pretty complicated with park factors thrown in etc. I got that from baseballgraphs.com. He has another pitching stat that correlates well with DIPS. His FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching?) +3.2 is within .1 of DIPS. That is why I wrote approx.

I do not know why his DIPS ERA is the same. Here is my really rudimentary plausible explanation. His HR rate is 1 per 10.47 inn compared to 1 every 9.56 last year. His walk rate is 0.26/inn this year compared to 0.255/inn last year and K rate of
0.51/inn this year compared to 0.56/inn last year. As the weighting factor for HR is 13 compared to 3 for BB and -2 for K, the small decrease in HR rate compensates for his increase in the other rates.

Also, Buehrle did not reject a 27 million contract. When everyone says this, they are buying into the WS PR. He rejected a 11 million guaranteed contract. For him to get the rest he had performance incentives to reach. MB thought that if he does reach those performance incentives, he will make more money through arbitration anyway. So he took a gamble. I think it is a good gamble.

Thanks for the welcome and I should also add that I am a Cubs fan but not a SOX hater.

indianbadger
11-15-2003, 12:55 PM
Looks like I was very unfair in calling Jose a bad fielder based on range factor and fielding percentage. Using a better metric of fielding Win Shares Jose Valentin was the BEST fielding SS in the AL this year. If you use his WS/1000 inn rate stat he was at 6.73 which is also the best among everyday SS in the league. The Gold Glove winner Alex Rodriguez has a total WS of 6.43 with a rate of 4.69/1000. So SORRY Jose for calling you the reason for Buehrle's DIPS ERA increase. Robbie Alomar is a mediocre at 2B though as his rate stat of 4.81/1000 shows that he has slowed down considerably recently.

BTW Clayton had a 6.53 fielding WS with a 5.36/1000 rate. So here perception belies reality as Jose is actually a pretty good fielder. So if it wasn't Jose does that mean that the rest of the fielders sucked so bad that it drove MB's ERA up so much? Some other Sox fan should do a comparison of fielding WS last year and compare it to this year and see if this holds up that the fielding was worse this year. Although Sox had a total of 44 fielding WS with only 4 teams better. I dont know what it was last year. Another fascinating point to be noted is that the pitching was 5th best in the league and hitting was 8th in the league. So hitting was the problem not pitching. I remember reading all through the season that pitching was what was letting the Sox down with nothing after the three starters and a bad bullpen etc. Looks like pitching held up its end of the deal and it was hitting that let the Sox down.

Enough from me. I will shut up now.

guillen4life13
11-15-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by indianbadger
Thanks for the welcome and I should also add that I am a Cubs fan but not a SOX hater.

Good. But, if you haven't already, you will find that these forums are populated by Sox fans, and cubs haters.

But, you're always welcome here as long as you don't troll. God knows the world could use a few levelheaded, knowledgable cubs fans like yourself.

sox3
11-15-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
But, you're always welcome here as long as you don't troll. God knows the world could use a few levelheaded, knowledgable cubs fans like yourself.

Amen to that!

On the subject of defense, Diamondmind showed in their 2002 Defense Efficiency Report that the Sox were second only to the Angels in the AL a year ago

I think that the media, based primarily on fielding persentage, has given the Sox a bad rap for several years

However, what indianbadger said about Robbie Alomar, plus the fact that RA hit about the same for the Sox as he did for the Mets (and a slight decline from last year), makes me believe that re-signing him would be the worst mistake that KW could make this winter

To Daver & all: Thanks for the welcome earlier & I appreciated the help given with registration

jordan23ventura
11-15-2003, 03:27 PM
I'd offer Robbie $2 mil just to sit on the bench and teach the players. Granted, his playing days may be nearing an end, but if it's me I kiss his ass hoping he'll become maybe an infield instructor or a third base coach or something in the organization (if he would be willing to accept that, my guess is no). Same thing with Sandy, as much as I would love to bring up another minor leaguer to put behind Olivo, the Alomars are too valuable. JR is watching Pippen's presence on the Bulls help reinvigorate a dead team to at least some signs of life, maybe the same could happen across town.

sox3
11-15-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by jordan23ventura
I'd offer Robbie $2 mil just to sit on the bench and teach the players.

That would be great if the Sox were working with the Yankees budget, but the Sox are projecting a payroll between $50-60 million with most of that already spent on Mags, Frank, Jose, Loaiza & much of the rest will go to others after arbitration.
Also, if Rafael Santana can help Valentin as much as he did this year, how many infield coaches do you need?

Originally posted by jordan23ventura
Granted, his playing days may be nearing an end

If he weren't chasing 3000 hits, Robbie would probably have retired at the end of his current contract

Originally posted by jordan23ventura
Same thing with Sandy, as much as I would love to bring up another minor leaguer to put behind Olivo, the Alomars are too valuable.

Since the pitchers ERAs were almost a run lower with Olivo catching than with Sandy, (do I need to mention controlling the running game or time spent on the DL?) the real need for a second catcher would be to rest Olivo without a big drop-off in defense and to supplement the offense (a left-handed hitting catcher?)

If the Sox had not rehired Santana and Kusnyer, then hiring the Alomars as coaches would be doable, but on a tight budget it is a luxury that KW cannot afford
If it were up to me, the most I would do with either Alomar would be to invite them to spring training with no guarantees

DSpivack
11-16-2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by indianbadger
Another fascinating point to be noted is that the pitching was 5th best in the league and hitting was 8th in the league. So hitting was the problem not pitching. I remember reading all through the season that pitching was what was letting the Sox down with nothing after the three starters and a bad bullpen etc. Looks like pitching held up its end of the deal and it was hitting that let the Sox down.

Maybe it's just me, but what I remember from most fans' [as in the common reaction here on wsi] reactions last year, was that it was the pitching that was doing well and the hitting that was leading us down. This was due to slow starts by PK, Maggs, and others. Sure, Buehrle had a slow start, but Loaiza, Colon, and Garland all pitched relatively well. This is in contrast with the good hitting and poor pitching of the past few seasons.

Lip Man 1
11-16-2003, 01:39 PM
I think this "trend" shows once again, that you just can't patch all the holes you need to when your payroll is only in the mid 50's. The Sox are always "hoping" that things break right, that they don't have any serious injuries and that some kids can step up.

Obviously the results the past few years have shown that the odds of all these things happening are pretty small and that you can probably expect to see many more years of the pitching being good (save for the 5th starters) but not the hitting or vice versa or the defense dropping off and so on.

You get what you pay for.

Lip

joecrede
11-16-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I think this "trend" shows once again, that you just can't patch all the holes you need to when your payroll is only in the mid 50's. The Sox are always "hoping" that things break right, that they don't have any serious injuries and that some kids can step up.

Lip, some team will win the AL Cental with a payroll in the mid 50's.

guillen4life13
11-16-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Lip, some team will win the AL Cental with a payroll in the mid 50's.

lol