Odds and Ends: Mirabelli, Lohse, Spring Stats

Here are some links I’ve cobbled together.

Dodgers Haven’t Discussed German With Royals

On Sunday evening, Ken Rosenthal wrote that Ron Belliard of the Nationals and Esteban German of the Royals were "attracting the Dodgers’ interest."

However, Bob Dutton of the Kansas City Star reports today that Royals’ GM Dayton Moore has not been informed of any interest in German by the Dodgers.  German is known for his .373 career OBP and his versatility, though Baseball Prospectus says he is "capable of playing second, third, and the outfield equally poorly."

Odds and Ends: Loretta, German, Belliard, Baldelli

  • An update to the Ken Rosenthal article discussed earlier suggests that either Esteban German or Ron Belliard would be better, cheaper alternatives for the Dodgers than Joe Crede or Brandon Inge. It would take less to get Belliard or German, they’re paid less, and either of them could back up Jeff Kent, 40, at second base in addition to playing third. Both players are "attracting the Dodgers’ interest" according to Rosenthal.
  • The Baltimore Sun is now reporting that the Orioles have an interest in Mark Loretta. Hopefully this is a sign that the Brian Roberts-to-Chicago saga will soon mercifully come to a conclusion. Loretta apparently isn’t slated for regular duty in a Houston infield that now features Miguel Tejada, Kaz Matsui and Ty Wigginton, which is why he might be in play. The Astros sent a scout to watch the O’s on Sunday.
  • Rocco Baldelli spoke with Joe McDonald of the Providence Journal about his myriad health problems, and dispelled some of the more creative speculation about him. He didn’t, however, address the big decision on his future that the Rays will be forced to make in the coming weeks. As discussed here a couple of days ago, and again in Sunday’s St. Petersburg Times, the decision on whether the team will pick up Baldelli’s 2009 option has to be made by April 1st. The Times suggests the Rays will pass, meaning a $4MM buyout.

Posted by Andrew Stoeten of Drunk Jays Fans.

Odds and Ends: Johnson, Ponson, Nady

Ever lose a contact in the bathroom and scour for it for hours?  That was my morning.  Good times.  On to the links.

  • Friend of MLBTR Susan Slusser notes that the Giants had two scouts watching the A’s on Wednesday.  One guy they might have been eyeing is first baseman Dan Johnson.  It seems that Johnson, who is out of options, may be able to linger around on the A’s roster until at least mid-April given the expanded rosters for the Japan series.  And since Slusser’s article we’ve learned that Daric Barton‘s hand injury is more serious than initially thought.  That could buy Johnson even more time if the A’s aren’t ready to trade him.
  • The Cardinals, Mariners, Royals, and Diamondbacks, Astros, and Rangers were among teams with scouts watching Sidney Ponson touch 94mph today.  He’s stopped drinking and lost some weight; who knows, maybe he can help an NL club.
  • Peter Abraham views Joba Chamberlain‘s recent comments with a little skepticism.
  • MLB.com’s Marty Noble calls a Mets trade for Xavier Nady "quite unlikely," though an anonymous Mets player likes the idea.

Send Questions To Brian Bannister

MLBTR did a Q&A with Royals starter Brian Bannister in January, and his answers were terrific.  Far from the usual athlete cliches.  Bannister recently answered questions at MLB.com, and he’ll be doing that twice monthly.  He posted the email address infocus@royals.com for you to submit questions – go for it!

While we’re on the topic of Bannister, Rany Jazayerli discusses how he can continue to succeed in the Majors even if he can’t maintain a .262 batting average on balls in play.

Royals Not Interested In Sosa

TODAY: Royals GM Dayton Moore denies interest in Sosa, saying he’s not looking to acquire any free agents currently.

THURSDAY: According to Enrique Rojas of ESPN Deportes, the Royals’ talks for Sammy Sosa have some life again.  However, a Royals official told ESPN last week that the team prefers to go young.  Meanwhile, Jose Guillen is campaigning for Sosa. 

Really, Sammy taking away ABs from any current Royal doesn’t seem to make any sense.  You’d hate to see Billy Butler affected, and even a trickle down minor loss of opportunity for Joey Gathright, Ross Gload, Mark Teahen, or Ryan Shealy would be counterproductive.  It’s time for Sosa to settle in as a bench player who can mash lefties, rather than shoot for 400+ ABs.

Odds and Ends: Papelbon, Bonds

Your collection of links and rumors…

  • Interestingly, Pirates GM Neal Huntington put out a statement for Pirates’ fans.  He explains why the Pirates have been inactive this winter, and I agree with the logic.  This team doesn’t need to be wasting money on mediocre free agents.
  • Justin Huber is out of options, so he’ll either make the Royals or end up elsewhere.
  • Athletics Nation paints a picture in which the A’s are buyers at this year’s trade deadline.  A parallel universe with a healthy Rich Harden, if you will.
  • The Red Sox are exploring a multiyear deal for Jonathan Papelbon, according to Gordon Edes of the Boston Globe.
  • With 20/20 hindsight, Viva El Birdos rewrites how they might have conducted the Cardinals’ offseason moves.
  • No one wants Barry Bonds.  He’s in game shape, but one exec Andrew Baggarly talked to has heard no rumors at all.  Baggarly has talked to some baseball officials who believe Bonds might play in Japan in 2008.  Now that would be something.

Odds and Ends: Kelly Johnson, Nathan, Crede

Time for some early Monday odds and ends.

  • Remember how White Sox GM Ron Schueler embarrassed Cubs GM Ed Lynch in 1998 by acquiring Jon Garland for Matt Karchner?  Rany Jazayerli sees a parallel to that heist with the Royals’ acquisition of Daniel Cortes as part of the July ’06 Mike MacDougal trade.
  • Mike Berardino’s blog continues to entertain; this time with a Dan Miceli story.  Ah, knife fights with siblings.  Who among us can say they haven’t had one or two?
  • Buster Olney learned from Braves GM Frank Wren that Kelly Johnson has been the team’s most asked-for player in trade talks this winter.
  • The look on Kyle Kendrick‘s face is priceless.
  • Extension talks with the Twins and Joe Nathan have gone dormant.  Nathan still thinks the gap can be bridged but wants it done before the season begins.
  • Andy Marte and Shin-Soo Choo are both out of options; when Choo comes back from elbow surgery a month into the season one of them could be traded.
  • Henry Schulman says the White Sox may accept prospects from the Giants for Joe Crede.
  • Derek Lowe is entering his walk year, and he hasn’t had any extension talks with the Dodgers yet.

Brian Bannister Q&A, Part 3

Royals starter Brian Bannister recently answered some questions for MLBTR readers.  This post concludes the series; also check out Part 1 and Part 2 Q&A.  Brian clearly took extra time out to answer thoughtfully, and we thank him for it.

MLBTR: Since you originally went to college as a position player, how do you use your experience in the batter’s box and in the field to your advantage when you’re pitching? Playing in the AL, do you miss hitting?

Bannister: I think it is as important to know how a hitter thinks and operates as it is to be able to throw major league quality pitches. One area I have done a lot of work on is how a hitter sees a pitch, determines its speed and location, and decides whether or not to swing depending on the situation.

To me, there are three types of pitchers that can be successful in the major leagues, each for different reasons. The one thing they share in common is that they all have a deception that makes it difficult for hitters to visually predict where the ball will be when it enters the hitting zone. If you think about it, a hitter does not actually see the ball hit his bat, he loses the ball a certain distance out in front of him and has to "guess" where it will end up. This is why repetition and good eyesight are important for a hitter, and why as pitchers we don’t want to pitch in patterns. Hitters spend hours hitting off of pitching machines and BP pitchers, where there is no deception, and they are very good at it. Here are the three types of pitchers I have seen that can "deceive" Major League hitters and be successful:

1. "Late Movers" – These pitchers have the ability to make the ball move in the zone after the hitter visually loses the ball either more than the average pitcher, in a different manner than the average pitcher, or in a completely random manner altogether. These are pitchers that throw cut fastballs ("cutters", such as Mariano Rivera), sinking fastballs ("sinkers", such as Chien-Ming Wang & Fausto Carmona), split-fingered fastballs ("splitters", such as Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, J.J. Putz & Dan Haren), knuckleballs (such as Tim Wakefield), or from an arm angle that puts more sidespin on the ball than backspin (such as Jake Peavy). If I could throw any pitch, it would be the split-fingered fastball, because the movement on it is unpredictable and is impossible to hit squarely every time. Unfortunately, it is also the most dangerous on the arm and requires large hands to take the strain off of the elbow. All these pitchers share the ability of having good "stuff", but their ball moves late in the zone more than anyone else in the game and is never straight.

2. "Risers" – These pitchers are the most exciting to watch in baseball, because they have the appearance of "blowing away" hitters. To be a "riser", you have to have exceptional lower body flexibility and be able to pitch under control with a long stride. What "risers" do that other pitchers can’t is they throw the ball on a plane with more upward tilt than average. In other words, their fastball appears to "rise" as passes through the hitting zone. What is actually happening is the hitter sees
the ball, and he predicts that it is going to be lower based on past experience than it actually is. Pitchers that have this unique ability include: Josh Beckett, Jonathan Papelbon, John Maine, Scott Kazmir, Chris Young, Pedro Martinez, and my all-time favorite in this category, Nolan Ryan.

3. "Deceivers" – These pitchers have a unique pitching motion that hides the ball longer than the average pitcher or makes it difficult for the hitter to determine the actual speed of the pitch. Most often, these pitchers are left-handed and stride across their body more than the average pitcher. Young pitchers can work on their deception by trying to keep their front shoulder closed longer, bringing their lead arm/glove in front of their release point, and making sure their throwing arm stays hidden behind the body. Pitchers that have mastered the art of deception are: Johan Santana, Tom Glavine, Erik Bedard, C.C. Sabathia, Oliver Perez, and my favorite deceiver/late mover hybrid, Greg Maddux.

After studying and watching the best pitchers in the game for years, I have come up with these three categories that I believe all good pitchers fit into. If a pitcher is not having success, despite having great "stuff" I believe it is because he is not deceiving hitters the way that the pitchers above do. Major League hitters are in the big leagues for a reason, and it is our job as pitchers to find ways to get them out. Finding out which category you naturally fit into and working hard on developing that deception is the best way for a young pitcher to be successful in the long run.

And yes, I do miss hitting.

MLBTR: Are you familiar with the Batting Average on Balls In Play (BABIP) stat?  It’s been suggested that the percentage of batted balls that drop in for hits may be largely out of a pitcher’s control.  What are your thoughts on that?

Bannister: I think a lot of fans underestimate how much time I spend working with statistics to improve my performance on the field. For those that don’t know, the typical BABIP for starting pitchers in Major League Baseball is around .300 give or take a few points. The common (and valid) argument is that over the course of a pitcher’s career, he can not control his BABIP from year-to-year (because it is random), but over a period of time it will settle into the median range of roughly .300 (the peak of the bell curve). Therefore, pitchers that have a BABIP of under .300 are due to regress in subsequent years and pitchers with a BABIP above .300 should see some improvement (assuming they are a Major League Average pitcher).

Because I don’t have enough of a sample size yet (service time), I don’t claim to be able to beat the .300 average year in and year out at the Major League level. However, I also don’t feel that every pitcher is hopelessly bound to that .300 number for his career if he takes some steps to improve his odds – which is what pitching is all about.

One thing that I work a lot with, and that is not factored into common statistical analysis, is what counts a pitcher pitches in most often – regardless of what type of "stuff" he has. Most stats only measure results, not the situations in which those results occurred. In the common box score, an RBI is an RBI, but it doesn’t show the count, number of outs, and number of runners on base when it occurred. For me, the area where pitchers have the most opportunity to improve or be better than average is in their count leverage.

Let me give the fans and young pitchers out there one example of a way that I try to improve my performance, this time with regards to BABIP.

Question to myself: Does a hitter have the same BABIP in a 2-1 count that he does in an 0-2, 1-2, or 2-2 count? How does his batting average and OBP/SLG/OPS differ when he has two strikes on him vs zero or one strike?

These are the type of questions that I will come up with and employ in my starts to see if I can improve my outings. For example, here are my career numbers in the counts mentioned above:

2-1: .380 (19/50)
1-2: .196 (20/102)
2-2: .171 (18/105)
0-2: .057 (3/53)

It is obvious that hitters, even at the Major League level, do not perform as well when the count is in the pitcher’s favor, and vice-versa. This is because with two strikes, a hitter HAS to swing at a pitch in the strike zone or he is out, and he must also make a split-second decision on whether a borderline pitch is a strike or not, reducing his ability to put a good swing on the ball. What this does is take away a hitter’s choice. If I throw a curveball with two strikes, the hitter has to swing if the pitch is in the strike zone, whether he is good at hitting a curveball or not. He also does not have a choice on location. We are all familiar with Ted Williams’ famous strike zone averages at the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is well-known that a pitch knee-high on the outside corner will not have the same batting average or OBP/SLG/OPS as one waist-high right down the middle. Here is a comparison of the batting averages and slugging percentage on my fastball vs. my curveball:

Fastball: .246/.404
Curveball: .184/.265

The important thing to note is that, with two strikes, if I throw a curveball for a strike, the hitter has to swing at it (and I like those numbers). How does a pitcher use this to his advantage? By throwing strikes and keeping the advantage on his side as often as possible. It seems like such a simple solution, yet so much more emphasis is placed on "stuff" nowadays and this is often not reinforced. When a pitcher who has great "stuff" employs this line of thinking, his numbers will improve to an even greater degree.

So, to finally answer the question about BABIP, if we look at the numbers above, how can a Major League pitcher try and beat the .300 BABIP average? By pitching in 0-2, 1-2, & 2-2 counts more often than the historical averages of pitchers in the Major Leagues. Until a pitcher reaches two strikes, he has no historical statistical advantage over the hitter. In fact, my batting averages against in 0-1, 1-0, & 1-1 counts are .297/.295/.311 respectively, very close to the roughly .300 average.

My explanation for why I have beat the average so far is that in my career I have been able to get a Major League hitter to put the ball in play in a 1-2 or 0-2 count 155 times, and in a 2-0 or 2-1 count 78 times. That’s twice as often in my favor, & I’ll take those odds.

Brian Bannister Q&A, Part 2

Royals starter Brian Bannister was kind enough to answer questions for MLBTR readers.  Check out Part 1 and Part 3 of the Q&A, also.

MLBTR: What’s the most misunderstood aspect of succeeding in baseball by typical fans, sportswriters, and announcers?

Bannister: There are two things that make baseball unique from other sports. One, baseball is a game of skill that is accentuated by the physical tools of the person performing those skills. Most people superficially judge a position player solely on size, strength, and speed, when his eyesight, balance, rhythm, hand-eye coordination, and mental makeup are much more influential factors in his future success. It is when a player embodies all of these qualities that we get our superstars and hall-of-famers. I would much rather face a hitter with "80" power and "80" speed but bad strike zone discipline than one with no power and a .400+ OBP. Over the course of time, the hitter with the .400+ OBP is going to hurt me much, much more, especially if he is surrounded by other good hitters.

Secondly, whether you like it or not, baseball is a game of randomness. We play outdoors (mostly) in changing elements and field dimensions, and each pitch results in a series of events that can go in either teams favor. One thing that I have have come to accept is that just because I train hard physically, I practice perfectly, I prepare diligently, and execute a pitch exactly as I wanted, it can still result in a home run. In golf, if you analyze all the variables correctly (lie, distance, slope, wind, etc.) and execute your swing perfectly, it will result in a great shot. Not so for a pitcher or a hitter. A hitter can swing the bat perfectly and it will result in an out more than six times out of ten. Therefore, as a pitcher, I study and play to put the percentages in my favor more than anything because I know that I can’t control the outcome in a single game or series of games, but over the course of a season or a career I will be better than average.

MLBTR: How will you prepare to face the Tigers’ everyday lineup?

Bannister: I have a good knowledge of and also a healthy respect for the Tigers’ lineup, and I have faced new additions Miguel Cabrera and Jacque Jones before. Edgar Renteria is the one new player that I don’t have any experience against.

I think the most important thing when preparing to face a lineup of this caliber is to be realistic and to recognize how they have been playing recently, because confidence level is everything with a good offense. If you look at good lineups, they tend to be extremely streaky, but their cold streaks will be much shorter than their hot streaks over the course of a season. During the hot streaks, teams and opposing pitchers tend to be intimidated by their offensive prowess, and games can be blowouts. In contrast, during the cold streaks they can seem to be a totally different team because they have very high expectations placed on them by the fans and media, and when they’re struggling, it tends to snowball.

When a good lineup is hot, the only thing you can do is throw strikes and not allow yourself to put hitters on base unnecessarily. They are going to get their hits, and when they get them, you don’t want a lot of runners on base. By keeping yourself ahead in the count, you can reduce your pitch count and hopefully their slugging percentage as well.

When a team is struggling at the plate, a pitcher can take advantage by expanding the strike zone, especially with runners in scoring position. Hitters that have had a drought of home runs/RBIs tend to press in those situations, and they will underperform their historical OBP because they are anxious to drive in runs and break out of their slump.

I will also apply this strategy to individual hitters within the lineup. I choose my spots to try and get outs while avoiding the hitters that are hot. A lineup is a constantly changing dynamic that requires a mix of planning, psychology, and quick adjustments in order to be successful.

Show all