Oz27

Honestly, these projections are pretty brutal. The system takes a conservative approach to expectations, and the conservative approach makes this look like a bottom feeder in the AL in 2017.

It lists him a 487 because it is not confident in his ability to stay on the field for another 100 PAs. 

Mike Witt career numbers:
Innings 1-3: 3.74 ERA, 2.12 K/BB, .694 OPS
Innings 4-6: 3.80 ERA, 2.06 K/BB, .700 OPS
Innings 7-9: 4.03 ERA, 1.43 K/BB, .703 OPS
You were saying? 

we had the 3rd lowest reliever xFIP in 2015 for sept/oct.  The seventh lowest wOBA against during that time.  The 4th best hard hit ball rate.  
we were 24th in reliever IP for the 5 months leading up to that ranking 22nd in xFIP and 17th in xFIP against.  5th best hard hit ball rate.  
Maybe what sticks in your head (and Mikes) is the fact that Joe Smith and Huston Street were awful.  Were they, in particular, over worked?  Smith ended up with 65.1 ip that year.  Ranked 42nd in reliever innings.  Street had 62.1 ip.  ranked 65th.  Not one reliever on the team was in the top 30 for innings.   
That's far from an egregious work load and the numbers on the other stuff just don't really play out.   
And you can't just look at a pitcher's stuff and think that's going to hold up for innings 140-180.  The same argument can be made about wearing out a starter that can be made about wearing out a reliever.  I am not talking about extending conventional relievers beyond 60 or 70 innings as much as I am suggesting that guys who would normally be starters work out of the pen in 2-3 inning spurts every 3 days or so.  Why can't Tyler Skaggs and Alex Meyer pitch 120 innings in properly spaced appearances working out of the pen?  
I am essentially saying that a mediocre reliever who is pitching to a lineup one time through is better than most SP the third time through and the numbers bear that out.  Another way to look at it is this.  Jose Alvarez wasn't great last year.  He allowed a .318 wOBA against which never included him seeing the same guy twice in one appearance.  This was better than the third time through the lineup for Shoe (.319), Samardzija (.321), Arrieta (.325), JA Happ (.325), Matt Moore (.326), Hamels (.327), Jon Gray (.332), Nolasco (.338), Jose Quintana (.339), Gerrit Cole (.342), Zack Greinke (.343), Danny Salazar (.353), Stroman (.355), Maeda (.373), Santiago (.373), Chacin (.376), Shelby Miller (.386), Mike Leake (.397), Wade Miley (.399), Liriano (.438) and Jered Weaver (.441 - 4th worst in baseball).   What I mostly mean by pointing this out is that there are a hell of a lot more mediocre or even not that great relievers out there to choose than there are starters available of the caliber of those listed. 
 I get it.  This flies in the face of conventional wisdom and would fiercely piss off any starter if a manager rolls to the mound at 80 pitches and 4.2 innings.  It would also piss off all those potential starters converted to 'long relief' who would get schedule to pitch 2-3 inning every 3 days.  There are also a couple of other inherent problems with this system in that those three guys who would pitch the 5th, 6th, and 7th would have to be on a schedule potentially negating matchup opportunities.  You would also be shuttling the bottom of your pen back and forth to AAA and you would need a decent complement of at least mediocre guys who have options to go up and down on a regular basis (another thing that would piss off players).  The final nit is that it may keep from exposing lineups to a pitcher in a single game, but I haven't done the math to see what that exposure would be like over 3 and 4 game series and whether that's even relevant. 
It's complicated and would be annoying for a lot of players, managers, and potentially even fans but my point is that we are currently trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  In the end, finding a way to limit 3rd time through exposure means better run prevention which translates into wins and that's why the teams play.  

Good stuff and I very strongly agree. While the trend is in favor of this, I think it should be moving more quickly. Third-time-through-the-order-penalty is a very clear thing which we've known about for well over a decade and which has a very substantial impact on a pitcher's ability to get hitters out. On the flip side, relief pitchers are very good at getting batters out in their short appearances. Isn't it obvious then that you want less of the former and more of the latter? Sure, you're not quite as worried about it for the Kershaws of the world but I don't understand why average to below average pitchers are still being pushed so deep into games. Like I said, though, the trend is towards starters throwing fewer innings and that is good. To illustrate that further, here is the number of 180 IP seasons by year -
2016: 46
2015: 56
2014; 66
2013: 64
2012: 62
2011: 73
So as I said, the trend is very much in a downward direction and it's pretty significant. But there are still things about starter usage which I don't understand. For example, 11 starters with an ERA+ below 100 pitched more than 180 innings this year. Why the hell are teams trying to milk a couple of more outs from a tired pitcher who isn't even that good when he's well rested, when they could be handing the game over earlier to relievers far more likely to get those outs than a fatigued, below average starter?
There is a false narrative which existed for awhile here, linking our bullpen struggles in 2016 to overuse. That was just nonsense. We ranked 13th in bullpen innings pitched, with 544. In the days of seven or eight man bullpens, it's preposterous to suggest they cannot handle that work. Hell, they should be able to handle a lot more. Our bullpen was awful, compared to other bullpens, but our rotation was too. At the end of the day, a below average reliever is a better bet to get outs for you than a below average (or worse) starter with a high pitch count going through the order the third time. So even in our bad bullpen situation, I think we should have been quicker to pull the trigger on pitching changes.
If we're actually trying to win in 2017 - and it seems like we're at least making some attempt to do so - then it's crazy for us to not make a big effort to improve the bullpen. Getting down on our knees and praying that Street and Bailey can force out one last productive season each is not a strategy which should be employed by a team aiming to compete but it seems like that is where we are at. Maybe Jansen and Chapman weren't ever realistic (and I wouldn't have wanted Chapman at that price) but it is imperative we improve the bullpen in our position. Our rotation is not likely to be particularly good and it is also unlikely to be durable, so in that position it is common sense to stock up on reliable relief arms and give more innings to the bullpen. It's not too late, I guess, but we need to do something about it if we're at all thinking we can compete in 2017.
 

Good stuff and I very strongly agree. While the trend is in favor of this, I think it should be moving more quickly. Third-time-through-the-order-penalty is a very clear thing which we've known about for well over a decade and which has a very substantial impact on a pitcher's ability to get hitters out. On the flip side, relief pitchers are very good at getting batters out in their short appearances. Isn't it obvious then that you want less of the former and more of the latter? Sure, you're not quite as worried about it for the Kershaws of the world but I don't understand why average to below average pitchers are still being pushed so deep into games. Like I said, though, the trend is towards starters throwing fewer innings and that is good. To illustrate that further, here is the number of 180 IP seasons by year -
2016: 46
2015: 56
2014; 66
2013: 64
2012: 62
2011: 73
So as I said, the trend is very much in a downward direction and it's pretty significant. But there are still things about starter usage which I don't understand. For example, 11 starters with an ERA+ below 100 pitched more than 180 innings this year. Why the hell are teams trying to milk a couple of more outs from a tired pitcher who isn't even that good when he's well rested, when they could be handing the game over earlier to relievers far more likely to get those outs than a fatigued, below average starter?
There is a false narrative which existed for awhile here, linking our bullpen struggles in 2016 to overuse. That was just nonsense. We ranked 13th in bullpen innings pitched, with 544. In the days of seven or eight man bullpens, it's preposterous to suggest they cannot handle that work. Hell, they should be able to handle a lot more. Our bullpen was awful, compared to other bullpens, but our rotation was too. At the end of the day, a below average reliever is a better bet to get outs for you than a below average (or worse) starter with a high pitch count going through the order the third time. So even in our bad bullpen situation, I think we should have been quicker to pull the trigger on pitching changes.
If we're actually trying to win in 2017 - and it seems like we're at least making some attempt to do so - then it's crazy for us to not make a big effort to improve the bullpen. Getting down on our knees and praying that Street and Bailey can force out one last productive season each is not a strategy which should be employed by a team aiming to compete but it seems like that is where we are at. Maybe Jansen and Chapman weren't ever realistic (and I wouldn't have wanted Chapman at that price) but it is imperative we improve the bullpen in our position. Our rotation is not likely to be particularly good and it is also unlikely to be durable, so in that position it is common sense to stock up on reliable relief arms and give more innings to the bullpen. It's not too late, I guess, but we need to do something about it if we're at all thinking we can compete in 2017.
 

Good stuff and I very strongly agree. While the trend is in favor of this, I think it should be moving more quickly. Third-time-through-the-order-penalty is a very clear thing which we've known about for well over a decade and which has a very substantial impact on a pitcher's ability to get hitters out. On the flip side, relief pitchers are very good at getting batters out in their short appearances. Isn't it obvious then that you want less of the former and more of the latter? Sure, you're not quite as worried about it for the Kershaws of the world but I don't understand why average to below average pitchers are still being pushed so deep into games. Like I said, though, the trend is towards starters throwing fewer innings and that is good. To illustrate that further, here is the number of 180 IP seasons by year -
2016: 46
2015: 56
2014; 66
2013: 64
2012: 62
2011: 73
So as I said, the trend is very much in a downward direction and it's pretty significant. But there are still things about starter usage which I don't understand. For example, 11 starters with an ERA+ below 100 pitched more than 180 innings this year. Why the hell are teams trying to milk a couple of more outs from a tired pitcher who isn't even that good when he's well rested, when they could be handing the game over earlier to relievers far more likely to get those outs than a fatigued, below average starter?
There is a false narrative which existed for awhile here, linking our bullpen struggles in 2016 to overuse. That was just nonsense. We ranked 13th in bullpen innings pitched, with 544. In the days of seven or eight man bullpens, it's preposterous to suggest they cannot handle that work. Hell, they should be able to handle a lot more. Our bullpen was awful, compared to other bullpens, but our rotation was too. At the end of the day, a below average reliever is a better bet to get outs for you than a below average (or worse) starter with a high pitch count going through the order the third time. So even in our bad bullpen situation, I think we should have been quicker to pull the trigger on pitching changes.
If we're actually trying to win in 2017 - and it seems like we're at least making some attempt to do so - then it's crazy for us to not make a big effort to improve the bullpen. Getting down on our knees and praying that Street and Bailey can force out one last productive season each is not a strategy which should be employed by a team aiming to compete but it seems like that is where we are at. Maybe Jansen and Chapman weren't ever realistic (and I wouldn't have wanted Chapman at that price) but it is imperative we improve the bullpen in our position. Our rotation is not likely to be particularly good and it is also unlikely to be durable, so in that position it is common sense to stock up on reliable relief arms and give more innings to the bullpen. It's not too late, I guess, but we need to do something about it if we're at all thinking we can compete in 2017.
 

Good stuff and I very strongly agree. While the trend is in favor of this, I think it should be moving more quickly. Third-time-through-the-order-penalty is a very clear thing which we've known about for well over a decade and which has a very substantial impact on a pitcher's ability to get hitters out. On the flip side, relief pitchers are very good at getting batters out in their short appearances. Isn't it obvious then that you want less of the former and more of the latter? Sure, you're not quite as worried about it for the Kershaws of the world but I don't understand why average to below average pitchers are still being pushed so deep into games. Like I said, though, the trend is towards starters throwing fewer innings and that is good. To illustrate that further, here is the number of 180 IP seasons by year -
2016: 46
2015: 56
2014; 66
2013: 64
2012: 62
2011: 73
So as I said, the trend is very much in a downward direction and it's pretty significant. But there are still things about starter usage which I don't understand. For example, 11 starters with an ERA+ below 100 pitched more than 180 innings this year. Why the hell are teams trying to milk a couple of more outs from a tired pitcher who isn't even that good when he's well rested, when they could be handing the game over earlier to relievers far more likely to get those outs than a fatigued, below average starter?
There is a false narrative which existed for awhile here, linking our bullpen struggles in 2016 to overuse. That was just nonsense. We ranked 13th in bullpen innings pitched, with 544. In the days of seven or eight man bullpens, it's preposterous to suggest they cannot handle that work. Hell, they should be able to handle a lot more. Our bullpen was awful, compared to other bullpens, but our rotation was too. At the end of the day, a below average reliever is a better bet to get outs for you than a below average (or worse) starter with a high pitch count going through the order the third time. So even in our bad bullpen situation, I think we should have been quicker to pull the trigger on pitching changes.
If we're actually trying to win in 2017 - and it seems like we're at least making some attempt to do so - then it's crazy for us to not make a big effort to improve the bullpen. Getting down on our knees and praying that Street and Bailey can force out one last productive season each is not a strategy which should be employed by a team aiming to compete but it seems like that is where we are at. Maybe Jansen and Chapman weren't ever realistic (and I wouldn't have wanted Chapman at that price) but it is imperative we improve the bullpen in our position. Our rotation is not likely to be particularly good and it is also unlikely to be durable, so in that position it is common sense to stock up on reliable relief arms and give more innings to the bullpen. It's not too late, I guess, but we need to do something about it if we're at all thinking we can compete in 2017.
 

I have much less of an issue with you disagreeing with defensive stats because there is still a lot of judgement on a lot of the numbers they enter in and the sample size is so small. The number of framing opportunities is probably 100x the amount of defensive plays a player gets. Witch pitch FX the was it a ball or a strike is taken out of the equation as well as the was it called a ball or strike. It's a lot more similar to HRs in that respect. 
It's also a lot harder to notice the impact of framing than of a HR. For example if you can improve by getting one extra strike a game it's not all that noticeable and it has a micro impact on each game. But over the course of the season it adds up. It's like the rounding on transactions in Office Space. It's really why this stat is so important. Say a guy goes from getting 40 borderline pitches called a strike each game v. 42 called a ball and just flips it. It's not noticeable for people who watch every day but it adds up big time.
Maybe you are better watching games than I am but another example of an offensive difference would be watch a guy all year and then try to guess his batting average without looking at any numbers ever. I'd imagine it's really hard to do. In 600 ABs the difference between a .250 hitter and a .290 hitter is 25 hits. That's just one extra hit per week. It's really hard to notice if you don't track it and yet hitting .290 is much better (assuming all else is equal).

There are three types of teams. Those that are trying to win now, those that are trying to win later and stupid teams making half-assed attempts to do both. Which category do we fall into?
That is totally untrue.

It's actually funny because framing used to be the bastion of the old school. Now that pitch FX has made it possible to quantify, it is suddenly unimportant to the old school crowd.

Do we say that a hitter is terrible even though he has a high OPS+ or wRC+? No, of course not. That would be a sure-fire way to earn a one-way ticket to the lunatic asylum. So I don't understand why anyone, if they had bothered to go to any effort to understand them, would do that with pitch framing metrics. I consider it one of the most reliable statistics in baseball for two key reasons.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, there has been a history of an extremely high correlation in year-to-year framing results. The year-to-year correlation coefficient for individual framing metrics has been as high as 0.82. Admittedly, that has declined a lot in recent years but I put that down much more to framing being a teachable skill than any problem with the statistic. Anyway, the 'average' year-to-year correlation coefficient for pitch framing stats from 2008 to 2015 was 0.65. By comparison, for wRC+ it was .512. For OBP it was .546. For OPS it was .549. Put a simpler way, pitch framing metrics have been a better predictor of future pitch framing success than the most widely used offensive statistics have been of future hitting success. I refuse to believe that could be true unless pitch framing numbers were accurately reflecting a true, meaningful skill.
Secondly, pitch framing numbers are produced by thousands of events. We use 500 plate appearances - or events - to judge someone's hitting ability. But for everyday catchers we are using up to 7500 events to make a judgement. So the statistic is being produced with a sample size as much as 15 times larger what we're using to judge hitters. In offensive stats you occasionally get statistical outliers (after all the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter roughly works out to one hit per week over a full season) but when the sample size is so much bigger, outliers aren't really going to exist.
Pitch framing stats have been criticized in some circles and people like to criticize their findings, based on nothing more than their own limited subjective assessments. It's all well and good to say "he is horrible yet the stat rated him high" because the numbers don't say what you want them to, but if you wouldn't do that for offensive metrics then I'd suggest it's awfully silly to do it for pitch framing data.

there is no template for how Trout's next contract is going to go.  Eleven of the top 20 were extensions.  
Of the ones that weren't:
Arod was a Boras client when he left seattle after his age 24 season.  
Cano left the yankees after his age 30 season.  
Albert - low balled by Stl because they saw the decline coming
David Price - no chance of Tampa retaining him and then he was traded to detroit.  Then to toronto.  
Fielder - left Milwaukee for detroit
Scherzer - Boras client
Greinke - publicly proclaimed it was about the money.  
Heyward - no way the Cards were gonna retain him at that price. 
Teixeira - boras client.  
A lot of those players ended up free agents for obvious reasons.  
Stanton, Arod (2nd time around), Miggy, Votto, Kershaw, Jeter, Mauer, Verlander, Hernandez, Strasburg, Posey.  
 
In my opinion, you are overestimating the significance that the proximity to the end of the contract plays.  If the team is good and Mike wants to stay, he'll remain an Angel because Arte will pay him.  I have little doubt about that.  If the team sucks, there is no reason to retain him.  If Trout doesn't want to stay, then no amount of money you throw at him whether it's now or two years from now is going to motivate him.  He's gonna be the highest paid player of all time.  He's not gonna sign a contract right now.  He's already got 150mil + in his pocket.  Winning, comfort and legacy are going to matter because anywhere from 400-500 mil will be there no matter what.  Is the path to winning as a halo clear right now?  Nope.  Could it be more clear in 2 years?  Absolutely.  Even if the halos wanted to get it done right now, I don't see any reason for Trout to want to.  
 
 

You didn't question it. Beyond that you don't believe it. Which is something a 10 year old would say. What component of the stat do you find inaccurate? Is it the value of getting strikes called that are normally called balls? Is it the accuracy of the pitch fx? Is it whether or not it is a skill and not just noise? You raised no questions. You just said you don't buy it.
You want a response that is above that of a 10 year old then raise a better argument than I disagree with what the stat said so therefore it's wrong because the only response to that is "no you're wrong". If you'd like to see the math about why you're wrong then read any number of the links in this very thread that show the value of changing balls to strikes. If you'd like to see how that relates to Ianetta specifically then you can probably find his 2014 numbers online. I'm also sure you can read about how pitch fx works many places online.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-two-things-chris-iannetta-represents/
Here's just one article about it.

Well you were wrong and that's why they measure these things instead of just guessing.

For a little more information, here are the framing scores for catchers with a connection to us.
Perez: -2.5
Bandy: -1.3
Soto: -0.4
Maldonado: 2.1
Graterol: -0.1
And for overall fielding runs above average...
Perez: -0.8
Bandy: 0.6
Soto: 0.0
Maldonado: 4.3
Graterol: -0.1
It's worth emphasizing that Perez is not the plus defender people seem to believe he is. His throwing game is above average (+1.4 runs this year, +1.2 in 2015) but he is a below average framer and a roughly average blocker. Over a longer sample he might prove to be an average defensive catcher but the stats don't support the idea that he is particularly good.

There are three types of teams. Those that are trying to win now, those that are trying to win later and stupid teams making half-assed attempts to do both. Which category do we fall into?
That is totally untrue.

I'm not asking for them to turn it around over night. They've literally been the worst in baseball for like 3 or 4 consecutive years. That show's there's a problem with this organizations philosophy. 
And the Angels have talented players they could trade, quickly rebuilding the farmsystem. Instead of finishing with 80 wins, they'd finish with 70. Which is fine with me.

Bruh they have the worst farmsystem in baseball(going on 3 or 4 years now?) and little cost controlled talent.  That and Pujols has 1 maybe 2 productive seasons left in him.
They better fucking be in win now mode, if not then wtf are they doing.
 
 

Well, if Skaggs or Richards or Simmons or Cron or Jose Alvarez put together amazing seasons but the team doesn't achieve anything then who gives a shit? Good for them, I guess, but what does that really mean for us? They would improve their trade value, I suppose, and that is nice. But beyond that, what does it matter? What is to say any of that helps to keep Trout?
If the team is truly good (over 90 wins) and somehow misses the playoffs, I could see how people could make an exception. The point I was trying to make was the metrics some people are using, like "playing meaningful September baseball", are terrible measures of success. If you're a .500 team you're probably playing meaningful September baseball because at some point in the month you're probably within four or so games of a wild card. Is that a success? Hell no. At the end of the day, we have four chances left to win with Trout and not winning the division this year just means we've blown another one of them. It's pretty hard to view that as a success.
Also, this team is clearly being designed to compete now. Every transaction we've made in recent memory has been designed to either improve our 2017 chances of winning or not hurt them. Plus, we have a $250 million player whose days as an above-replacement level player are quickly running out, as well as the game's best player for what is a relatively short period of time remaining. If the aim isn't to win now, what the hell is it?

Every pitch is recorded. It uses stat cast to track each pitch. It's then compared to other pitches in the same location and seen how often is called a ball and how often is called a strike. 
Getting a pitch called a strike more often is better. I know a lot of you don't believe in stats, but they show his tend to do better when ahead in the count and pitchers tend to do better when the hitter is behind. 
Obviously getting a strike on a pitch that is called a strike 90% of the time isn't as valuable as getting one that's called 10% of the time. It's factored into how much credit the catcher gets. 

For a little more information, here are the framing scores for catchers with a connection to us.
Perez: -2.5
Bandy: -1.3
Soto: -0.4
Maldonado: 2.1
Graterol: -0.1
And for overall fielding runs above average...
Perez: -0.8
Bandy: 0.6
Soto: 0.0
Maldonado: 4.3
Graterol: -0.1
It's worth emphasizing that Perez is not the plus defender people seem to believe he is. His throwing game is above average (+1.4 runs this year, +1.2 in 2015) but he is a below average framer and a roughly average blocker. Over a longer sample he might prove to be an average defensive catcher but the stats don't support the idea that he is particularly good.

Antiquated, while you can't let teams around and carelessly, it's not a major aspect of the game anymore. And the more we learn about catching defense, the more it just becomes another factor in evaluating catching defense.
 
Goddamn, I feel like I've had to post this link a million times, HERE IT IS AGAIN if you're interested in seeing how the Dbacks are trying to evaluate it. And here is how it factors into another way of evaluating pitchers, Deserved Runs Against. Give both a read. They're worth the time.
 
Everyone seems wary of it because they don't know what it is.  

Well, if Skaggs or Richards or Simmons or Cron or Jose Alvarez put together amazing seasons but the team doesn't achieve anything then who gives a shit? Good for them, I guess, but what does that really mean for us? They would improve their trade value, I suppose, and that is nice. But beyond that, what does it matter? What is to say any of that helps to keep Trout?
If the team is truly good (over 90 wins) and somehow misses the playoffs, I could see how people could make an exception. The point I was trying to make was the metrics some people are using, like "playing meaningful September baseball", are terrible measures of success. If you're a .500 team you're probably playing meaningful September baseball because at some point in the month you're probably within four or so games of a wild card. Is that a success? Hell no. At the end of the day, we have four chances left to win with Trout and not winning the division this year just means we've blown another one of them. It's pretty hard to view that as a success.
Also, this team is clearly being designed to compete now. Every transaction we've made in recent memory has been designed to either improve our 2017 chances of winning or not hurt them. Plus, we have a $250 million player whose days as an above-replacement level player are quickly running out, as well as the game's best player for what is a relatively short period of time remaining. If the aim isn't to win now, what the hell is it?

That makes a lot of sense. Someone comes in and tells you you're 30 runs below average with your framing, you might not believe it but you sure as hell start thinking of ways to improve.