I like our young starting pitching.......................BUT

[rluzinski]

I know it a lightning rod but WAR is a garbage stat to me, even for pitchers. Anyone who throws 150 innings can get a WAR of 1.0, look at 2011 (picked for last full season) of the 107 guys, only 10 didn't put up a 1.0 WAR.

 

I believe you have it backwards. Just about any pitcher who wants to be allowed to pitch 150 innings in one season in the majors is going to need to be able to put up 1 WAR over that time. If you are a back of the rotation starter who has an ERA of 5.5 over 100 innings, you are probably getting yanked.

 

That's why you have to be careful when you specify a minimum IP/PA. Playing time correlates with performance.

[MJLiverock]

I know this has delved way off topic and I know what you are getting at with which is causing which and I thought of that point as well but when I looked at the numbers again it still looks like a 1.0 WAR is about what the true mythical "replacement level" pitching level is. No one is going to sign a starting pitcher they don't expect to throw 120 innings or probably even more.

 

In 2011 of the 130 guys with 120 IP 17 had an ERA or higher, and 11 of those guys had a WAR of 1 including John Lackey and his 6.41 ERA putting up a 1.6 ERA. Even using xFIP of 4.7s are generating WARs over 1. That looks a lot like replacement level pitching. If a team is willing to just let you sit there an throw a bunch of ineffective innings it will generate a 1 WAR. Or if they pull you at 100 innings and put the next ineffective guy in who likely isn't any better, basically perfectly defining Pitcher A as replacement level, you can add the two totally ineffective guys WARs together at get over 1.0 pretty easily just because combined they threw 150+ innings even if they both had ERAs over 4.8.

[brewtown82]

I'm thinking if the Brewers want to contend next year, they have to either trade for a good SP by sacrificing young pitching, go with the guys they've got, or get a 1-year deal decent starter (if one exists). All the position players are signed for next year, and so is Gallardo. Next year is really the year that it has to all come together if the Crew is going to win a World Series anytime soon IMO, but they can't sign some albatross pitching contract, even Greinke, and expect to be a contender after 2013 no matter what.

[adambr2]

I'm thinking if the Brewers want to contend next year, they have to either trade for a good SP by sacrificing young pitching

 

This strategy would be very, very upsetting to me.

[brewtown82]

I too would be upset if they traded their young pitching. Go with what you got if there aren't any decent FA options we can afford.

[gregmag]

I agree with the idea of getting a midrotation starter through free agency if we can get a good guy at a good price, because you need pitching depth. But I don't think it's an absolute necessity. The idea of trading some of our young pitching to get veteran pitching seems especially strange to me, as does the idea that we should simply assume some of our rookie pitchers will fail because lots of rookie pitchers fail.

 

Yo is an established frontline guy. Estrada at this point I think you insult by calling him an established back-of-the-rotation guy. Fiers is no longer a rookie, and I'd say he's an established midrotation guy on the assumption that he's just been gassed his last several starts (but people who have actually gotten to see him can correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Rogers and Peralta will be rookies, but they'll be rookies with a bit of MLB under their belts. Rogers has looked very good in seven starts; Peralta has looked pretty good in three. By the end of the season, we'll know something meaningful about both guys. Right now they look like legit rotation candidates for anybody. Why, exactly, is it so obvious that we'll be a better team with, say, Joe Saunders in our rotation than with Wily Peralta?

 

I'm not at all sure that we can get an affordable guy in FA who will be a better bet to succeed next year than Peralta. The real question is whether we're comfortable with Thornburg and Burgos as our insurance against injury or ineffectiveness among the top five. That's why I'm down with the idea of a free agent.

[igor67]

I'm intentionally trying to take this a different direction. After years of not being able to develop more than 1 starter a decade, and the odd bullpen arm or two we've had young guys bust out as rookie's or near rookies like never before. Fiers, Rogers, and Estrada all did it long enough in the majors to be beyond flukes (which doesn't mean there might not be regression) even Peralta is suddenly looking dialed in. It's crazy, awesome and at least as much fun as watching Braun, Prince and Weeks crush everything insight.

[homer]

Combined stats of Peralta, Rogers, Fiers:

 

174.1 IP, 159K, 52BB 3.25ERA

[TooLiveBrew]

Combined stats of Peralta, Rogers, Fiers:

 

174.1 IP, 159K, 52BB 3.25ERA

Young players can't handle the pressure of a postseason chase, everyone knows that

[And That]

The real question is whether we're comfortable with Thornburg and Burgos as our insurance against injury or ineffectiveness among the top five.

 

That's my point. Even though a rotation consisting totally of the aforementioned in-house options could do very well, it's a statistical near-certainty that we will need at least one more starter sometime next year, and more than likely more than that. There have been only a handful of teams in the last number of decades to use only even 6 starters. The fact that the Brewers did it last year should not delude them into thinking that will happen again any time soon.

 

Also more than likely, there will be significant innings that will need to be covered by those replacement starters. I'm not down so much on Gallardo/Rogers/Fiers/Peralta/Estrada, it's just that I'm not extremely up on Thornburg or Burgos, or anyone in line after that, at least in 2013. I'd rather the sixth guy be Peralta or Estrada.

 

But if the Brewers can't get someone at a value in free agency and can't find a SP in the trade market at a value, they should just go with what they have and hope for good injury luck and a lack of pitcher implosions.

[logan82]

I don't think Peralta will be eligible for the postseason.

[Katuluu]

Also more than likely, there will be significant innings that will need to be covered by those replacement starters. I'm not down so much on Gallardo/Rogers/Fiers/Peralta/Estrada, it's just that I'm not extremely up on Thornburg or Burgos, or anyone in line after that, at least in 2013. I'd rather the sixth guy be Peralta or Estrada.

 

I'm the same. Maybe if I had any confidence that Narveson could return I would feel better at him being the 6th guy, but since that looks highly unlikely I'd rather we sign a solid guy for the rotation, hopefully on a very short term deal, and that buys our young guys a little bit more time and helps keep the major league club competitive.

[JohnBriggs12]

Katuluu,

 

What is "highly unlikely" about Narveson returning? He's already throwing and reported to be well ahead of schedule. Unless the Brewers decide not to tender him and he thinks he has a better shot elsewhere, I think he'll be in the mix in spring. Especially given the lack of lefties. Now whether he can squeeze into a rotation of Gallardo, Fiers, Rogers, Peralta and Estrada is a different story. He may well start out in the pen or start the season on the DL so he can be sent on rehab for a month. I can't imagine the Brewers intend to go down the Manny Parra road yet another time.

[adambr2]

I don't think Peralta will be eligible for the postseason.

 

Couldn't they just DL Rogers? He was on the 25 roster before September, so Peralta should be eligible to take his place if they DL him as an "injury replacement".