Patrick Saunders of the Denver Post tackles a number of topics pertaining to the Rockies’ offseason in his latest Rockies Mailbag column. Among the more interesting items of note, Saunders opines that Carlos Gonzalez’s days in Colorado are through, noting that it’s unlikely that he’ll receive a qualifying offer. Saunders also notes that the ascension of prospect Ryan McMahon, who has been working out at second base, could also cloud DJ LeMahieu’s future with the club. LeMahieu is a free agent after the 2018 season, and McMahon has little left to prove in the minors. McMahon cut his teeth as a corner infielder, however, so it seems possible that the Rox could yet view him as an option at first base, where they’re currently a bit unsettled. Ian Desmond, of course, is an option there, though he could also be utilized in the outfield or elsewhere on the diamond (perhaps even at second base, speculatively speaking, though he has hasn’t played there since 2009 with the Nationals).
A bit more from the game’s Western divisions…
- Dodgers righty Yu Darvish reached out to Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News with an unprompted message to praise Rangers pitching coach Doug Brocail and recently fired bullpen coach Brad Holman. As Grant notes, Darvish’s recent improvements and changed mechanics have led to criticism for his coaches with the Rangers. “…There should be no criticism of Doug Brocail or Brad Holman,” said Darvish. “They are both very good coaches without a doubt. They are also great people. I’m not the kind of person who lies, so please trust me when I say this.” Darvish goes on to explain some of the alterations that he’s made since changing teams and eventually comes back to the point that there’s “no major difference in coaching or philosophy” that has led to his rebound following his trade to Los Angeles.
- Following up on Evan Drellich’s recent report that Red Sox hitting coach Chili Davis will interview for the same position with the Padres, Dennis Lin of the San Diego Union-Tribune adds that the Padres have also interviewed four other candidates for the currently vacant post. Lin also notes that the Friars won’t bring infield coach Ramon Vazquez back to the coaching staff next year, though rather than making a new hire, his duties could potentially be absorbed by third base coach Glenn Hoffman. “We decided to go in a different direction to work with and lead our infielders,” manager Andy Green tells Lin.
- The Angels will be on the hunt for multiple relievers that can pitch multiple innings this winter, writes MLB.com’s Maria Guaradado. “I believe every bullpen needs at least two guys that can pitch multiple innings,” GM Billy Eppler said this month, per Guardado. “At least two.” Yusmeiro Petit excelled for the Angels in that capacity this year, tossing 91 1/3 innings of 2.76 ERA ball with 10.0 K/9 against 1.8 BB/9. Eppler wouldn’t comment on the possibility of retaining Petit, though it stands to reason based on Eppler’s outspoken interest in players of his skill set and Petit’s success in Anaheim that the team would at least have interest.
It’s pretty cool of Yu Darvish to go out of his way to defend his former coaches, even while being in the middle of the NLCS.
The Cubs were so bad Darvish was able to send the text to the reporter from the mound.
Yu is a class act
I second that.
OTOH, Darvish also pointedly mentioned that the Dodgers let him pitch how he wants to pitch. As opposed to Brocail, who infamously told Banister to pull Darvish from a game for not pitching how Brocail wanted. And it’s not the first time Darvish has said something like that since going to L.A.
I’m a grown man, what does OTOH mean?
On the other hand
Lol
Are you having a Mike Gundy moment?
Darvish is not “pitch(ing) how he wants.” He changed mechanics after suggestions from the Dodgers pitching coach and Clayton Kershaw. Your bias is clouding the truth.
Yea it was just said by the announcers during his start last night…quoting Different Dodgers..
Well, don’t tell Darvish, because *he* says Dodgers are letting him pitch however he’s comfortable; while providing input and analysis for him to study. Texas also provided input and analysis, but have had two managers and two pitching coaches who told him how they wanted him to pitch, some explicitly different from how he liked to work.
There is an interesting trend going on in the game at the moment, We’re seeing more and more GM’s looking for multiple long men. Starters are no longer looked upon to go deep in the game but to last 4-5 innings and turn it over to a long man. The current use of the 10 day DL by some teams hints at this. Will be interesting to see how this plays out this winter.
Yeah, it makes sense. For decades now teams have known about the “times through the order” penalty, i.e., a pitcher almost always gets worse the more times he goes through a batting order. But tradition and old-school thinking kept the old standard starter model in play. I think in 10-15 years we won’t really see “starting” pitchers at all, just multiple relievers basically. Some people find this a boring kind of baseball, but statistically it’s the way to go.
The way the game has transformed has kind of forced teams into that position.
Pitchers are only in 5 innings of work and already around 80 to 90 pitches more often now a days it seems like.
So a guy who can go multiple innings, 2 or 3, has become a necessity as to not overwork your starters.
You could say the walks and homeruns approach by young hitters is contributing to that. Singles rates are at an all time low. So it makes sense (to me at least) that it would drive up pitch counts, forcing teams to find more multi inning relief. And then there’s the Bud Norris types who could bite the bullet and prolong their careers in that kind of role instead of bouncing around trying to sell themselves as starters well into their 30’s. Then my question after all of that becomes do we still have the Kershaws and the Sales 10 years from now? How much would this change drive up their value?
Chili Davis would be huge for the padres with Big Mac
Big Mac and Chili. Terrible meal, great combination of hitting minds.
Probably an indicator that Darvish will be back in Texas after the Dodgers fail to bring home a championship.
No it’s not. I’m a Ranger fan, and I know he won’t be back
Yes, because the Rangers are a championship dynasty.
You sound mad that you didnt get the Verdugo and Buehler package you insisted on the dodgers give up for Yu.
Didn’t the Rangers fail to win a World Series in back to back appearances? People who live in glass houses man…
Aren’t they the same Rangers who have never won in their entire existence?
But, they have been there. This isn’t like buffalo.
I’m also a loyal Rangers fan and I see the chances of Darvish coming back as pretty slim.
The most telling part of the article is the teams he matched up against in September to get his sub 1 ERA.
look behind you it’s the blue Jays!!!! just kidding
Yu sure looked good for his new team this evening.
Rick Honeycutt is a legend, you only need to look at the way he has that bullpen working, full of knowledge and full of experience.
Here’s an example of how I don’t understand WAR. Petit pitched 91 innings of 2.76 ball with 10 K/9 and 0.953 WHIP and a 153 ERA+ so how does he only account for 1.6 rWar? Seems way better than guys I see in that range and more like someone who would be up around 3 or so.
relievers don’t usually get high wars
Which is just weird in and of itself. Relievers are a big part of the game. If WAR can’t accurately account for them, then how seriously should that stat really be taken?
With a beer and a bump.
(full-time) relievers are limited to ~75 IP a season.
(full-time) starters are given 32 GS, which is ~ 185 IP per season
WAR is an accrual stat.
That’s why.
It’s a fair criticism. WAR is context-neutral, so elite relievers are going to be undervalued because they don’t get additional credit for pitching in the highest-leverage situations, so yeah, I wouldn’t use WAR for relievers.
I don’t see it as the death knell for the stat, though, unless it’s incorrectly applied. Using a single stat to judge a player regardless of position doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The type of people who hate WAR usually like the pitcher win, for instance, and almost nobody would argue that that’s a good way to measure relievers either.
I think WAR is a pretty silly stat and yet I never talk about pitcher wins because it is essentially meaningless. So go figure. Go figure another way, because that way was wrong.
No one with a fully developed brain likes the pitcher win as a stat
Ignorance never ends from this clown^
Well you sort of answered your own question because if you multiply everything by 2 you get a newly 200 inning starter with a 2.76 ERA and a 3.2 WAR. One way of looking at it is the fact that 91 innings makes up 10 games. Multiply that by 16 and you get 160 games and a 25 WAR. So that 1.6 is quite valuable.
rWAR is more basic and accrual-based, so the number of innings pitched have a larger impact. fWAR uses FIP instead of ERA, which compensates a bit. Some will disagree. Petit’s fWAR is 2.2, which you could short-handed convert to 4.4 fWAR comparable to a darn good starter. So maybe that helps a bit.