Today: Pirates-Reds, 8-12-08; Scheppers throws bullpen at PNC

Karsten also has the benefit of coming from a huge media market (...if you can make it there...) to a much smaller and potentially more forgiving environment.

I agree that caution is meritted with regards to his future especially considering the 1.81 ERA of Duke (pre-Colburn) and the first five wins of Burnett's career, but tonight I am hoping that the kid continues to baffle the National League.

Here's hoping for 3 - 0 and a still amazing 0.00 ERA.

You can blame me if he blows up early....

here's hoping he can coast through the big hitting lefty-free reds order (nice knowing you Griffey & Dunn).

A very nerdy article on the importance of strikeout rate in predicting the future performance.

www.hardballtimes.com/.../another-look-at-dips1

The simple explanation as to why so much attention is paid to the strikeout rate (especially in the minors) is that a guy who strikes out a lot of batters is not dependent on defense or luck for success, and generally continues to strike out those batters at a predictable clip.  Also, if minor league strike out numbers tend to regress as a guy moves into the majors, a barely passable minor league strike out rate might be an indication that the player doesn't have enough "stuff" to get out major league hitters, since very few pitchers are able to survive as successful major league pitchers without striking guys out (see: Zach Duke).

Yeah.  After tearing apart two first place teams, it would be a shame to see Karstens struggle against the Reds.  Especially a Griffey and Dunn-less Reds.  I wouldn't be surprised if the reds played like the Astros did recently against the Pirates, i.e. completely lifeless.  They have no chance of doing anything this season by now anyways, but I'm sure losing Dunn might help to better put the hopelessness into perspective for the players.  Hey, anything to get Karstens some more scoreless innings.  Right?

More interesting strikeout stuff:

www.hardballtimes.com/.../will-to-power

And a quote:

"For a baseball fan to fail to see that strikeout rates are closely tied to career length, I would argue, is very much like a basketball fan failing to notice that basketball players tend to be tall."

- Bill James in The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract

End result:

Pitchers that strike out more batters are generally a) more effective; b) last longer in the major leagues.  Hence the importance of minor league strike out rate when evaluating young pitchers.

mattenat, I like that point, especially because the Pirates have both Exhibits A and B on their team.  You already mentioned Duke, but on the opposite end of the spectrum, look at Maholm.  What's changed for him besides his ERA?  His strikeout rate.  Early in his career, I don't think there were many people who looked at Paul Maholm and thought he could strike out 10 in one game.  And heck, who needs stats.  Just look at his stuff.  That big knuckle curve has drastically improved into a great out pitch.  More strikeouts = less balls in play = no chance for luck to factor into the ERA equation a la Zack Duke.

Don't we have to discount Duke for the Colburn / Tracy effect?

What's the ceiling look like for Scheppers, assuming he signs? Top to mid-rotation? Lower rotation/reliever?

According to www.thebaseballcube.com/.../zach-duke.shtml:

Zach Duke minor league strikeout rate (in 474 innings): 7.14

Zach Duke major league strikeout rate (in 528 innings): 4.60

It's interesting to note about Zach Duke, though, that the minor league numbers are a little skewed.  He moved so quickly through the upper minor leagues en route to that great season that the decline in K/9 doesn't reflect in his average quite as much.  Sample size is certainly an issue here, but if we trust that the small sample is reflective of overall trends:

A K/9: 8.05

AA K/9: 6.31

AAA K/9: 5.50

Rookie MLB K/9: 6.17

Since rookie MLB K/9: 4.30

"Not make or break" kinda suggests they're going more on the medical exam.

Quoting Baseball America:  "Scheppers has the stuff to be a top of the rotation starter . . . ."

The thing that Karstens does seem to have that Duke never had is a fastball.  He's not going to stay at 0.00 forever, but Duke's problems began when Coburn changed his mechanics and his control slipped, not because "the league had suddenly figured him out."  

What I like about Karstens so far is that he can go out and throw junk one day and be effective, and then turn around and blow it by the next team.  I think that (standard disclaimer -- barring overuse and arm trouble) his future will depend on becoming unpredictable with his four pitches

Karstens tonight = No Hitter.

oh bucco...that ruined it. Yu stating that is like the whole team sitiing next to him and talking about the game during a no no Sure thing to blow it...Thanks for nothing...lol.

@mattenat - I'm not sure the hardballtimes article says quite what you're suggesting: it's bottom line disputes the Bill James lines you quote, showing that, while strikeout pitchers are likely to have longer careers, it's not a huge differential, and the FIP (expected runs based on K, BB, HBP, and HR) between low- and high-K pitchers are statistically indistinguishable.

Also, your first link contains a link to Diamond Mind that shows pretty conclusively that the originator of Defense Independent Pitching Stats was wrong to think that pitchers have no control over opponents' average on balls in play. It's a noisy stat, but not a random one. And it's something that pitchers show control over whether they're power pitchers, control pitchers, knucklers, or "crafty lefties."

Most interesting from the Diamond Mind link: the "average" ML pitcher is very good, in the sense that most ABs throughout history have occurred against guys with fairly long careers and overall stats that look a lot more like Doug Drabek than, say, Jimmy Anderson. In particular, when it comes to controlling BA against, the guys who never see 1000 batters are terrible, everyone else is in the middle, and only the guys with longevity (10,000+ batters faced*) are noticeably above average.

* A guy with a lot of quality starts will see 750-1000 batters/season

JH I agree with your comments. He isn't Cy Young but he does have effective stuff. One other thing it seems SO FAR is that he will battle the hitter. Unlike many of the other throwers we have that nibble and do not take command of the zone it seems again, so far, that he is willing to throw a ball to get the batters attention and make him think what is coming next. He does not have to throw 95 + heat. As Ray Miller used to say "Work Fast, Change Speeds, and Throw Strikes".

Scheppers, if healthy is the real deal

Headline: "Scheppers throws bullpen at PNC"

Yeah and if he keeps doing that he will have arm problems like all the other highly touted pitchers that have come up through the Pittsburgh organization.

Either that or a hernia.

Scheppers will be a top of the rotation guy, if he stays healthy he could be with the pirates by the age of 23, 24

if not sooner

@Mosswillbeastud

Stop teasing us.

This team will never be good again, and the sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can get back to pondering the quality of waiver wire acquisitions for the bench.

I'm not teasing

If the Pirates Sign Scheppers he will be the ace this team has needed for a long time

@jroth From the Hardball Times article:

"We certainly haven’t disproven James’ theory; after all, we did find that high-strikeout pitchers last longer than do equally skilled low-strikeout pitchers, even if that finding is not significant in the statistical sense. On the other hand, we certainly could not prove James' theory, either; a 35% probability of something happening just due to pure luck is very high—more than double the odds of correctly guessing how a six-sided die will land (and no one would attribute one correct guess there to skill)."

And also:

"In other words, we have what James might call “quality leakage.” That is, we’re comparing two quite uneven groups: The high-strikeout pitchers are quite obviously better than the low-strikeout hurlers. We should expect the former group to have better careers the rest of the way, even in percentage terms, because they are better pitchers and because they’re much further away from dropping off a cliff."

I was really happy to find the Hardball Times link because I thought it gave both citations of the evidence and some skepticism.  I don't think the article disproves, at all, the idea that pitchers with higher K/9 rates are better pitchers, which was Dejan's original issue and why I posted the link.  Unlike the article, I'm not sure it's fair to throw out the fact that pitchers who have higher K/9 rates are better, and thus more likely to have longevity.  I think that's part of it.  In the same way that batters who have a multitude of skills "age" better as their skills diminish, pitchers who can strike guys out "age" better as their K/9 falls.  They have more adjustments they can make.  A pitcher that already is scraping by with a low K/9 is not going to continue to adjust successfully to the league as his K/9 rate falls through his career (except, of course, in far outliers).

As for the diamond minds article, it says:

"To recap, this examination of career totals suggests very strongly that a meaningful number of pitchers have demonstrated the ability to reduce the rate of hits on balls in play."

Which seems different from saying the DIPS guy was wrong.  I think the consensus is that DIPS isn't perfect (which is why there are lots of variations including DIPS, DIPS 2.0, DIPS 3.0, LIPS, FIP, etc), but the idea was a big departure from previous thinking about pitching, and has been very influential (and generally proven to be more correct then not).

I think DK's point is well taken.  Duke's K numbers were less of a problem while he progressed through the system than they have become in the majors.  The bloated BA against and declining velocity is more concerning.

@mattenat

Oh, I didn't mean that the Diamond Mind article disproved DIPS as a whole - just that it disproved one of the DIPS guy's initial claims (which he later backed down from, somewhat). The main takeaway for me is that if you have a guy who shows signs of being very adept at limiting BA against, that shouldn't be discarded in favor of a strictly DIPS approach - a guy like Charlie Hough can have a fine career with poor DIPS numbers because he was exceptional at limiting hits (saving a third of a run per start). But you have to be pretty good at it to stand out, and who knows if it translates from the minors to the majors (I would imagine that guys with good offspeed stuff can get through the minors with superb BA against, but not necessarily fool ML hitters with it. And I don't just mean Duke).

As for the other article, I saw it as drilling down to see whether K/9 rules, ceteris paribus, or whether it's simply measuring whether better pitchers pitch better. And what it showed was that, if you have 2 young guys you already know are pretty good (but not great), K/9 isn't a reliable predictor of the rest of their careers. But without that track record, go with the K/9, by all means. As I said about the other article, K/9 (and BB/9, for that matter) translate more directly from the minors to the majors than some other factors.

This isn't really on-topic, except for the prediction about Scheppers:

Part of what bothers me about the rebuilding is that we only have 2 solid pieces - Nate and Doumit - and we only have them 3 more years. I'm writing off all 5 2008 starters for now - maybe 1 or 2 become back of the rotation guys, but none of them are studs. In 2009, we won't have any of the best new players - maybe Cutch, maybe Ohlendorf. In 2010, if everything goes right, we have Alvarez, Scheppers, and the rest of the better new guys (except Tabata). A lot of rookies and second year guys, plus our 2 solid pieces, 1 year from free agency.

That means, to me, that the best possible case is a competitive team in 2011, which is promptly blown up as Nate, Doumit, and the best pitchers from 2008 leave. Whatever minor league depth NH has developed by then still won't be majors-ready in 2012 (or will be majors-ready but low-ceiling).

I feel like this rebuilding is really building for 2013 and later; 20 years in the desert? No wonder I'm staying home tonight.

mattenat - you write too much.  Keep it short.

What's wrong with being a little long winded?  If all you can say is "yee-haw" and "arrrgh" you don't add much to any discussion.

I think the rebuilding is proceeding apace.  We've moved up from 16th to 11th in the NL and still have a shot to climb a bit.  It's not instant gratification, but it is progress.

We should be better next year.  Pitching has to improve, and the offensive hit we took isn't that big when you spread it out over the whole team.  

"We should be better next year.  Pitching has to improve, and the offensive hit we took isn't that big when you spread it out over the whole team.  "

I'm going to print that out, tape it to my wall, and stare at it all winter.

I have serious fears about what happens without Jack. This year, we go into the All-Star Break at .500 or above if he doesn't miss April and half of May. Other than that, as long as one of Moss, Cutch, and Pearce turns into a serviceable major leaguer next year, I could see the team as a whole improving, but we'd need luck to reach .500.

"I'm going to print that out, tape it to my wall, and stare at it all winter."

I should probably warn you that I've been accused by people whose opinion I respect of being so optimistic that I think yesterday will get better.  You have to have unflaggable optimism to follow this club.

But really, how could pitching get any worse?  Losing Jack would be a big blow, but if Huntington could get another 2 or 3 uberprospects in the deal, that would give us 11 new guys along with the 3 or 4 we've been waiting for.  In a group that large there has to be a few hits, doesn't there?

"But really, how could pitching get any worse?  Losing Jack would be a big blow, but if Huntington could get another 2 or 3 uberprospects in the deal, that would give us 11 new guys along with the 3 or 4 we've been waiting for.  In a group that large there has to be a few hits, doesn't there?"

Obviously, the pitching will get better, if only by regressing to the mean. My worry about SS is that we'll give up both glove and bat, and possibly cripple the IF defense as a whole (neither Freddy nor Andy L have a lot of range - Jack makes up for that). I don't like the idea that an Iszturis type is the solution, either - waste FA dollars on a marginal player.

I'm sorry in 2013 we better be contending with the peices in place now considering we lock up Nate and Ryan, and Paul keeps pitching this well, or even a little worse, we will be contending by 2011.

Th Chicago Sun times thinks the Pirates will be contending in the year 2010

here is the link:

www.suntimes.com/.../1087414,CST-SPT-cub02.article

Maybe I'm just optimistic, but an outfield of Moss, McClouth and McCutchen, or Tabata instead of Moss in 2010  Ryan behind the plate, Pearce at first ( assuming Laroche is gone)

Andy Laroche at second with a question mark at short.

Starting pitching  could be really good or bad

Hmmm. Stan just interviewed Brandon Moss. I like him. He's pretty open about everything and he seems to have his head on straight.

Can we please get over the Colburn thing with Zach Duke?  While it is certainly possible that Colburn not only didn't help Duke, but even caused him to regress, it has been two years.  Zach Duke is a major league pitcher and is ultimately responsible for his performance.  I'm sure he would tell you the same thing.  This most likely is the pitcher he is and the three months is 2005 were an abberation.

Well as you can tell I like him too.  

I just have a feeling he will be a very special baseball player

Hey DK...Mobs just yes sir'd Mr. Stan Savran. You are not alone in the being called sir arena or should I say ballpark. Even though we all know Stan ( and I respect him a lot) is older than.....you fill in the blank :)

Moss seems like a good kid. You the first impression stuff.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but all I said was that Duke was effective when he first came up because he had excellent control.  Colburn changed his delivery and he hasn't managed to get that control back.

I like Duke.  I agree that he's ultimately responsbible for his own performance, and at the same time I think he could have used a stint in the minors if there had been someone adequate this year to allow it.

Can't wait for spring.

Jeez I love Ryan Doumit the wild man, but let's quit trying to steal bases after squatting behind the plate for half an hour, eh?

This really is a minor criticism made with a chuckle, how can you not like a catcher trying to steal bases (well, except when he makes outs!)

I think Edinson Volquez and Sophie Masloff have the same hairdresser.

nice job leaving 5 men on base doug.. and 4 rivas

"nice job leaving 5 men on base doug."

How long have you been waiting to post that? The man has been clutch and it took a great play by the 1st baseman to prevent a bases clearing double by Doug.

anyone around after a disapointing game

Here I is, Mosswillbeastud ...

I have to say I don't know how disappointed I feel ... nothing like the first four innings yesterday. Just seems like they missed on there opportunities ... and against Volquez there weren't that many.

How were you disappointed?

yea just like how clutch he was the other day when he tried to sac bunt in extra innings n popped it up to the pitcher..

n thats a terrible excuse that the first baseman had to make a great play to stop him from having a bases clearing double.. thats like saying well if the pitchers curveball didnt move so much then he woulda hit a homerun

Officer Mancuso -

>>I think Edinson Volquez and Sophie Masloff have the same hairdresser<<

Heck, I can't remember what Sophie's hair looked like. Whenever she appeared, her voice frightened me so much I closed my eyes. Thus, I don't think I ever saw her hair.