Dave Bush's peripherals

[TooLiveBrew]

The pitchers you mention are young pitchers and not established average to above average pitchers like Bush is.

 

Francouer is an OF too... position doesn't matter to me (personally), just relevant examples of established avg. to above-avg. players. I don't think anyone aside from Buchholtz & possibly Owings could be dismissed. Santana has logged over 650 IP to this point, and imho has established that he's far closer to his 1.30 career WHIP than the 1.5+ he posted in '07. There's just no way we're going to agree on this front aside from:

 

 

I certainly do not think Bush should have been sent to AAA or bumped for McClung -- even when he was pitching poorly in April.

[endaround]

Bush was sent down because they coudl send him down. It was to make room for Gallardo and then Bush was back within 10 days, its not like he "learned" something while in AAA.

[Fatter than Joey]

Santana has logged over 650 IP to this point, and imho has established that he's far closer to his 1.30 career WHIP than the 1.5+ he posted in '07.

 

When was Santana sent down? -- I would say if Santana was sent down at this point in his career you would have a solid case, however he was sent down in 2007, not when he had 650 IP.

 

There's just no way we're going to agree on this front aside from:

I certainly do not think Bush should have been sent to AAA or bumped for McClung -- even when he was pitching poorly in April.

 

I think this is really the lion's share of our argument, and for the most part I just think your rages/rants should be directed more at the Brewers for sending him down and mcclunging Bush than the average fan. That is to say, I blame the Brewers more for not being more patient with Bush and yanking him around because of some silly split, than I do the casual fan who is probably reacting more to the Brewers actions than Bush's numbers or performances.

[JJHardy7]

What type of extension (if any) would you offer Bush? Is he going to get Suppan type money when/if he hits free agency? I know he's had his ups and downs, but I'm just curious as to what his real free agent value would be.

[Thurston Fluff]

Liriano was in AAA this season. He started their because he was recovering from injury but was stuck there even when it was obvious he was ready to return the MN and they had a guy who needed to be replaced in Hernandez. Sometimes the odd man out did not deserve the demotion as much as others may have deserved it less or the organization has financial reasons for the move.

[kramnoj]

What type of extension (if any) would you offer Bush? Is he going to get Suppan type money when/if he hits free agency? I know he's had his ups and downs, but I'm just curious as to what his real free agent value would be.

 

Bush is completing his 4th year of service time, so he is still under team control for 2 years after this. IMO, there isn't a need to extend him now. If he can put up a good 2009, maybe offer to buy out a year or two of FA, but that will depend on everything else with the team. If he can keep putting up league averagish seasons where he has 30+ starts and 180+ IP he is probably going to get a 3-4 year deal for $10m+ per season. Gil Meche has similar performance to Bush, and he got a 5 year $55 mil deal. As with any market, it will largely depend on supply and demand.

[ILuvDaBush]

I may not be the most impartial observer, but I would definitely put Bush near the top of people I would extend. WOuld a 4yr/$28mil contract be enough? You would have to think he could surpass that type of contract easily if he hit free agency. Then again, he could fall off again so the Brewers would be assuming some type of risk with a multi-year deal. But if he begins to put it together, Chris Carpenter-style, the Crew would have one of the better long-term deals for a quality pitcher.

[kramnoj]

WOuld a 4yr/$28mil contract be enough?

 

Every market is obviously different, but I found this to be an interesting question and started digging through Cot's to see if I could find similar examples. It looks like Jon Garland signed an extension before his last arby year that bought out 2 years of FA for 3/$29 million. Garland had just put up a 128 ERA+ in 2005, otherwise he hovered around league average previously. So a more accomplished pitcher 3 years ago got almost $10m/year for last arby and 2 FA years.

 

I guess that hypothetical depends on if Bush is more like Braun or Fielder. Is he more interested in security and getting a life-changing deal while giving up earning potential, or does he want to get every dollar he can through arby and then FA? I think your proposal is a reasonable starting point for the Brewers, if they would want to make an offer.

[rluzinski]

Way late to this party but...

 

For a batter, "strikeouts don't matter" in an average situation, compared to a ball-in-play out. With a runner at 3B and one out, the difference between a strikeout and ball-in-play out is significant. I wouldn't dare say a strikeout doesn't matter there. With a runner at 1B and 0 or 1 outs, a K is actually better on average.

 

Compare the negative outs for each base/out situation:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/lwtsrobo.html

 

What's the net result? It takes around 100 strikeouts in an average base/out situation to cost a team one run. if that sounds completely wrong to you, it's because you are valuaing the negative value of a strikeout more with respect to its lack of entertainment than anything else.

 

Now, if you are comparing a strikeout to a ball-in-play, strikeouts are very costly to a batter and very valuable to a pitcher. You are basically comparing about a 30% chance of a hit to a 0% chance. And since a pitcher and batter's strikeout rate stabilizes much quicker than their BABIP, it's a great tool for trying to analyze a player's performance over a short period of time.

 

There are stats that are more descriptive and stats that are more predictive. When you are talking about only 125 IP, K/9 and BB/9 do the best and predicting future performance.

 

That said, there's nothing wrong with noting Bush's more descriptive stats. It's always interesting to see how a pitcher has found success. Just be careful assuming that that all types of success should be expected to continue equally.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

As a pro-management guy, I tend to give Doug and Ned the benefit of the doubt when they make roster moves, they certainly wouldn't demote Bush or mcclung him without good reason, -- right??

 

You're pro-management now? When did this happen? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif I'd like to think they wouldn't demote Bush or McClung without good reason... but this is the same organization that brought you such hits as --

If FTJ is Pro Management, then I'm Arnold Palmer

 

It's nice to see Bush get back somewhat to 2006 form where he had 166 K's with 38 BB's. I never thought he'd find his way back. I do wish he could K people like he used to. I assume hitters around the league just have the guy figured out.

[Ennder]

Bush is way closer to his 2007 numbers than 2006 numbers in everything but BABIP. I don't know why people are so pig headed about ERA and WHIP, they are way too luck based to be accurate indicators of a pitchers skill over a single season. Let go of that bias and you'll understand pitching so much better.

[olliegjw]

Russ, I understand what you are saying. However, isn't the more logical argument to take a K versus a BIP (not a BIP out)? A BIP will lead to more possibilities than just outs. I realize part of that is factored into OBP and SLG, but a K is still not equal to a BIP.

[rluzinski]

Russ, I understand what you are saying. However, isn't the more logical argument to take a K versus a BIP (not a BIP out)? A BIP will lead to more possibilities than just outs. I realize part of that is factored into OBP and SLG, but a K is still not equal to a BIP.

 

From my previous post:

 

"Now, if you are comparing a strikeout to a ball-in-play, strikeouts are very costly to a batter and very valuable to a pitcher."

 

My first paragraph was in response to the "He is a career .900 OPS hitter but he strikes out too much!" theory.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Bush is way closer to his 2007 numbers than 2006 numbers in everything but BABIP. I don't know why people are so pig headed about ERA and WHIP, they are way too luck based to be accurate indicators of a pitchers skill over a single season. Let go of that bias and you'll understand pitching so much better.

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is you have to translate that "skill" into results and ERA best shows the results. The results were not good for Dave Bush in 2007. They were decent in 2006. They are looking like they could be very decent in 2008.

[olliegjw]

From my previous post:

 

"Now, if you are comparing a strikeout to a ball-in-play, strikeouts are very costly to a batter and very valuable to a pitcher."

 

My first paragraph was in response to the "He is a career .900 OPS hitter but he strikes out too much!" theory.

My apologies, I stopped reading after the first part.

[Ennder]

Bush is way closer to his 2007 numbers than 2006 numbers in everything but BABIP. I don't know why people are so pig headed about ERA and WHIP, they are way too luck based to be accurate indicators of a pitchers skill over a single season. Let go of that bias and you'll understand pitching so much better.

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is you have to translate that "skill" into results and ERA best shows the results. The results were not good for Dave Bush in 2007. They were decent in 2006. They are looking like they could be very decent in 2008.

 

Being result oriented is exactly the problem. Dave Bush can pitch exactly the same two years in a row and a bunch of his bad pitches can happen with RISP one time and not the other time and he could easily see his ERA be as much as 2.00 different between the years. That is luck, it is not skill, it is results it is not a good judge of how he actually threw the ball. I just don't understand at all why people get so focused on ERA, it makes no sense to me.

 

ERA is pretty useful over a 3 season period but it is borderline random over a single season. That is why someone like Peavy can have a sub 3 ERA one year and a 4 ERA the next.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Please go into more of what you mean by luck? Because leaving meat balls down the middle, which is what Dave Bush tends to do doesn't seem like luck to me. He's doing that less and sure enough he's ERA is down.

[Ennder]

Please go into more of what you mean by luck? Because leaving meat balls down the middle, which is what Dave Bush tends to do doesn't seem like luck to me. He's doing that less and sure enough he's ERA is down.

 

Ok lets say that Dave Bush leaves 30 meat balls down the middle every season. In one season only 10 of those 30 are HRs, in the next season 20 of the 30 are HRs but out of those 15 were solo shots. The 3rd year 20 of the 30 are HRs again but only 1 is a solo shot but 29 are 3 run HRs. He threw 30 meat balls every year and one year he had a great ERA one year he had a decent one and one year he had a terrible one. Each season he threw the same exact number of meat balls.

 

Sure it is a goofy example but that is the reality of pitching, sometimes you throw a bad pitch and the hitter pops it up, sometimes you throw a good pitch and he clobbers it, sometimes you give up a HR and it is 1 RBI, sometimes it is 3. These things don't come anywhere close to evening out each season, if they did you wouldn't see ERA jump around so much season to season like it does.

 

I think Joe Blanton is a good example of this.

 

2005 - 5.19 K/9, 3.0 BB/9, 4.43 FIP and a 3.53 ERA because of a 75.3% LOB and a .255 BABIP.

2006 - 4.96 K/9, 2.69 BB/9, 4.16 FIP and a 4.82 ERA because of a 68.9% LOB and a .337 BABIP

2007 - 5.48 K/9, 1.57 BB/9, 3.50 FIP and a 3.95 ERA becasue of a 68.9% LOB and a .306 BABIP.

 

How do you look at those seasons and think 2005 was his best and not just lucky, pretty clearly 2007 was his best and most likely 2005 was his worst? If you had to guess on 2008 what would the guess be?

 

2008 - 4.85 K/9, 2.73 BB/9, 4.38 FIP and a 4.75 ERA because of a 68.9% LOB and a .306 BABIP.

 

I'm not trying to exaggerate here but 100's of studies have been done on this and have shown that ERA is just useless as a predicator of future success over one season of stats. You really cannot tell anything about a pitcher from one year of ERA because the sample size is still too small. As long as you are using it as a measure of judging a pitchers season you are not going to really understand pitching. Take that comment as me being smarmy or conceited whatever but it is the truth.

 

It can tell what happened but it cannot tell why it happened or whether or not it will happen again and that seems to me to be the really important part of judging a pitcher.

[rluzinski]

If we are talking dumb statistics, the larger the sample, the less luck/sample error and skill of your defense comes into play. Over 20,000 IP, I think it's fair to say that a pitcher's career BABIP represents his ability to suppress hits on balls-in-play very well. Over 200 innings, the skill part of the signal is just overwhelmed by all the noise.

 

Now, if we are talking scouting information, that's a different story. I'd like to think that some professional scouts can gauge movement pretty well. Maybe they can't. I think if any fan thinks they can keep track of how 'hittable" a particular pitcher's pitches have been (beyond velocity) over the course of a season, I'm calling bull. I'd at least rely on something more objective, like pitch F/X data. It can see f a guy's fastball has lost some movement or if his curve has flattened out.

[MJLiverock]

I understand what you are trying to say Ender regarding the luck factor but I always have a hard time buying into the assumption that the pitcher throws the same number of meat balls, the same locations, same velocity, same movement, pitch after pitch, game after game, to completely chalk it up to luck. I know this came up with Capuano last year and it turned out something was wrong with him and his pitches weren't the same so I would say his performances weren't just bad luck but bad pitching due to a injured arm.

 

I seem to remember that early in the season Dave Bush was topping out on his fastball in the mid 80's and people wondering if he was hurt or suffering from "dead arm". This is the stuff I can't just say well he has had a bit of bad luck. I think he was pitching different. He now has probably had some luck but has also strengthened his arm or done whatever it was that got some velocity back and improved his control. In April he logged 22.2 innings walking 12 and K'ing 16. The walks were very unBush like and I remember wondering why he suddenly couldn't throw strikes, he was obviously pitching different from his career norms.

 

This is why I have a hard time "letting go" and just calling all poor performance bad luck. These guys aren't robots throwing the same pitches like a video game which is what relying totally on some of these stats requires one to believe. The error term in some of these regressions has to be huge because of the variability in each pitch. I think this is what Rluz is saying that over the huge number of instances you get a better idea of talent or skill versus luck. I just tend to think some performances are just bad or good and not lucky or unlucky. Sometimes a guy has a bad year because his finger hurts, or his mind is elsewhere, or whatever but a lot more than just luck impacts the results.

 

Look at the Sheets game versus the Astros last week. Sheets supposedly has his good stuff but then grooves a meatball to Geoff Blum who hits a 3 run HR. Is it bad luck for Sheets or is it a bad pitch that occured because Sheets lost focus, just didn't get it right or whatever. Now say he does it 3 more times in a game and guys go back to back to back, similar to the Dodger game this year, is it bad luck or bad pitches or good hitters?

[joepepsi]

Good discussion. Let me add my 2 cents. Sometimes pitchers don't pitch as well. Sometimes it's only for a game-Sheets' can't get the curve to break, another pitcher admits "I had nothing out there". Sometimes it last for weeks, months, or a season--bad mechanics, loss of command, working through an injury.

 

Luck is an important factor but it's difficult for me to believe luck can cause a 2 run differential in ERA from season to season. 4 of the last 5 seasons Peavy had an ERA under 3. The difference between his ERA in those 4 seasons is probably due to luck. The 5th season, 2006, he had an ERA of 4.09. This is largely due to 5 starts in the first 2/3rd of the season where he gave up 6 runs or more. Were those 5 starts bad luck or was he struggle with a blister or some nagging issue over that time period?

[rluzinski]

With regard to BABIP, pitches with less velocity and movement and bad location get hit harder. That appears to be a pretty indesputable fact. The problem is, for the most part, fans are letting the result of the pitch determine whther it was a good or bad pitch. Sometimes a hanging curve gets poped up and a 95 MPH fastball on the corner and with great movement ends up over the wall. Was Sheets' fastball to Blum really a meat pitch? From my seat, I sure couldn't tell. Bad location?

 

If you really dig into the data, you can strip away a large chunk of the flukiness of small sample results. We know that Bush's velocity was down at the start of the season, so we expected his BABIP to suffer as a result. But if you are just looking at BABIP over a season and nothing else , you might as well just assume league average, because it tells you next to nothing by itself.

 

Pitch f/x data is pretty close to quantifying the pitcher's contribution to his BABIP. Exciting times! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Was Sheets' fastball to Blum really a meat pitch? From my seat, I sure couldn't tell. Bad location?

From my seat it looked like a horrible pitch. Can you check the f/x data on that one?

 

[rluzinski]

I was standing next to the LF foul pole on the 100 level, so I didn't mean to suggest that I had any chance of knowing if it was good or bad. I'll take a look tonight if I get a chance.

[TooLiveBrew]

I always have a hard time buying into the assumption that the pitcher throws the same number of meat balls, the same locations, same velocity, same movement, pitch after pitch, game after game, to completely chalk it up to luck.

 

Imo the point on 'luck' is not that every pitcher makes the same/similar mistakes over the course of the season... it's that pitchers' stats are heavily influenced by elements outside of his control: fielders, defensive alignment, umpires' calls (balls-&-strikes/basepaths/field), batters, coaches, etc.

 

I know Ennder's example here focused on 'the meatball', but it was (imo) just to address a specific point/question. "Luck" doesn't necessarily inherently mean 'good' or 'bad' -- to me, it's just another way to describe the random variance that occurs every season.