Freddy Peralta - This year's Brandon Woodruff

[Lathund]

Again you are talking about a pitcher who was being moved from the bullpen to the rotation and back, pretty much nothing you said has any meaning to it. Of course his innings per start were low. ANyway not going to bother reading your posts anymore so we will just agree to disagree. You can't just look at the bad and always ignore anything good and that seems to be your habit.

 

I look at reality. There's a big picture over time showing up from him in A+ to MLB and none of it points to starter. His pitch mix being a good FB 67% and 3 mediocre offerings doesn't point to starter.

 

It's like smoke is billowing out of the guy and your response is, that doesn't have any meaning. I don't have PROOF, but I got a ton of evidence that you don't have.

 

I look at reality. I don't ignore anything. It's a piece of the puzzle and its all weighted accordingly. There's nothing that says he's a starter in the MLB at this point other than MKE forcing him into the rotation when they had no other option. Let me tell you, its incredibly annoying to sit on a mountain of evidence and see someone spit on it, because "they're saying there's a chance."

 

Sit on small odds. Chase the river. Be my guest.

 

He throws two drastically different fastballs (In terms of launch angle, exit velocity, whiff %, location), saying "a good FB 67%" doesn't really convey the picture. So I disagree with the premise, but even then I would say that if you throw "a" pitch 67% of the time that's not just good, but elite (Fangraphs pitch value has it as the 10th best fastball among pitchers with 100+ IP), the rest can be mediocre and you can still have starter stuff.

 

Your "mountain of evidence" includes looking at ERA from Colorado Springs, IP/start in the 2017 Arizona Fall League (Which, in addition to the short starts in general in the AFL pointed out above, was also 16 months after having Tommy John Surgery), using 46 PAs to categorically state he's much worse 3rd time through the order (And with how the Brewers use starters, the fact that he's equally good 2nd time through as 1st should be an argument for, not against, starting). You also point out August 2019 as an example of why he's not a starter, a month where he averaged 5 2/3 IP/start with a 2.54 ERA. Now clearly I know you actually meant September/October, but if you're cherry picking months then I'll take that same liberty. But let's look at September, where batters hit .220/.283/.352 against him. Something that wasn't BABIP-driven (.305), and where he put up the best SO/W ratio of any month. I'll take a .634 OPS against, with an 11.1 K/9 and 2.60 BB/9 any day from my starters. That it, in those 24 innings, happened to result in a (still better than league average) ERA of 4.44 shouldn't be the takeaway. Raw ERA with no regard for context or sample size isn't a good way to evaluate pitchers.

[TJseven7]

He was over a 4 ERA at every minors level above A.

He was a 3.5 in fall ball. His 11 starts averaged 3.3 IP.

His numbers last year were dramatically better 1st time through 2nd time through and dramatically worse 3rd time through.

 

Minor league K/BB rates correlate much better to future MLB performance than minor league ERA. I'd give preference to K9, BB9, K/BB, age relative to league, batted ball profile & scouting reports before considering a guy's ERA.

 

I don't think anyone really pitches a ton of innings in fall ball. The highest average on Houser's team in 2015 averaged 4 1/3 IP per start.

 

Last year Adrian had 46 PAs third time through the order. His 127 career IP is far too small a sample to draw any meaningful conclusions from, much less 46 PAs.

 

I believe the team has him ahead of Burnes/Peralta in the 2020 rotation pecking order & deservedly so after last year.

 

Fall ball isn't to point out length of start. It's used to point out when the starts shrink in length results improve. K/9, BB9, K/BB and age related. Does that have a corollary to being a starter or being a major leaguer? Again you are looking for PROOF. There is no PROOF in small sample sizes but there are a lot of signals that all point in the same direction. Each one tips the scale in one direction.

 

Evidence has built over time. Putting him ahead of Burnes is a big helping of what have you done for me lately. Peralta has the better MiLB numbers to fall back on and without a 2nd dominant pitch and a 3rd solid offering he's a reliever too.

[TJseven7]

He was over a 4 ERA at every minors level above A.

He was a 3.5 in fall ball. His 11 starts averaged 3.3 IP.

His numbers last year were dramatically better 1st time through 2nd time through and dramatically worse 3rd time through.

 

Minor league K/BB rates correlate much better to future MLB performance than minor league ERA. I'd give preference to K9, BB9, K/BB, age relative to league, batted ball profile & scouting reports before considering a guy's ERA.

 

I don't think anyone really pitches a ton of innings in fall ball. The highest average on Houser's team in 2015 averaged 4 1/3 IP per start.

 

Last year Adrian had 46 PAs third time through the order. His 127 career IP is far too small a sample to draw any meaningful conclusions from, much less 46 PAs.

 

I believe the team has him ahead of Burnes/Peralta in the 2020 rotation pecking order & deservedly so after last year.

 

Fall ball isn't to point out length of start. It's used to point out when the starts shrink in length results improve. K/9, BB9, K/BB and age related. Does that have a corollary to being a starter or being a major leaguer? Again you are looking for PROOF. There is no PROOF in small sample sizes but there are a lot of signals that all point in the same direction. Each one tips the scale in one direction.

 

Evidence has built over time. Putting him ahead of Burnes is a big helping of what have you done for me lately. Peralta has the better MiLB numbers to fall back on and without a 2nd dominant pitch and a 3rd solid offering he's a reliever too.

[DHonks]

 

Fall ball isn't to point out length of start. It's used to point out when the starts shrink in length results improve.

 

 

I'd estimate that that statement is true for nearly every pitcher in MLB history. Saying shorter outings lead to better stats is like saying that teams that outscore their opponents will usually win.

[DHonks]

 

Fall ball isn't to point out length of start. It's used to point out when the starts shrink in length results improve.

 

 

I'd estimate that that statement is true for nearly every pitcher in MLB history. Saying shorter outings lead to better stats is like saying that teams that outscore their opponents will usually win.

[TJseven7]

 

Fall ball isn't to point out length of start. It's used to point out when the starts shrink in length results improve.

 

 

I'd estimate that that statement is true for nearly every pitcher in MLB history. Saying shorter outings lead to better stats is like saying that teams that outscore their opponents will usually win.

 

And I'd estimate that nearly every mediocre SP in the MLB would be better out of the pen. Makes you wonder if a guy throwing 4.5 ERA ball or worse is more beneficial to his team in the pen or the rotation. It's the reason I believe the Brewers take age advanced arms in the draft. Because even if they don't land as a starter you probably get a very good cheap reliever.

[TJseven7]

 

Fall ball isn't to point out length of start. It's used to point out when the starts shrink in length results improve.

 

 

I'd estimate that that statement is true for nearly every pitcher in MLB history. Saying shorter outings lead to better stats is like saying that teams that outscore their opponents will usually win.

 

And I'd estimate that nearly every mediocre SP in the MLB would be better out of the pen. Makes you wonder if a guy throwing 4.5 ERA ball or worse is more beneficial to his team in the pen or the rotation. It's the reason I believe the Brewers take age advanced arms in the draft. Because even if they don't land as a starter you probably get a very good cheap reliever.

[TJseven7]

He throws two drastically different fastballs (In terms of launch angle, exit velocity, whiff %, location), saying "a good FB 67%" doesn't really convey the picture. So I disagree with the premise, but even then I would say that if you throw "a" pitch 67% of the time that's not just good, but elite (Fangraphs pitch value has it as the 10th best fastball among pitchers with 100+ IP), the rest can be mediocre and you can still have starter stuff.

 

Your "mountain of evidence" includes looking at ERA from Colorado Springs, IP/start in the 2017 Arizona Fall League (Which, in addition to the short starts in general in the AFL pointed out above, was also 16 months after having Tommy John Surgery), using 46 PAs to categorically state he's much worse 3rd time through the order (And with how the Brewers use starters, the fact that he's equally good 2nd time through as 1st should be an argument for, not against, starting). You also point out August 2019 as an example of why he's not a starter, a month where he averaged 5 2/3 IP/start with a 2.54 ERA. Now clearly I know you actually meant September/October, but if you're cherry picking months then I'll take that same liberty. But let's look at September, where batters hit .220/.283/.352 against him. Something that wasn't BABIP-driven (.305), and where he put up the best SO/W ratio of any month. I'll take a .634 OPS against, with an 11.1 K/9 and 2.60 BB/9 any day from my starters. That it, in those 24 innings, happened to result in a (still better than league average) ERA of 4.44 shouldn't be the takeaway. Raw ERA with no regard for context or sample size isn't a good way to evaluate pitchers.

 

I'll give you the 2 different FBs. However those 2 pitches are 67% (31-36) of his offerings and their velocity is nearly identical. You put those 2 FBs 95-95 with his averageish CB 80 and he's a very nice reliever. Even calling both of those FBs each a plus pitch and calling the CB average is RP stuff. You can live on an elite FB and below average other offerings and be a starter? Tell that to 2018 Peralta. His FB graded elite in 2018. His starter ERA was 4.4. Didn't help him in 2019.

 

I was pointing to his last 6 starts not August as you said. It wasn't meant to cherry pick it was said because I've heard this story that he struggled as a starter because he wasn't stretched out. He was stretched out then so I figured it might matter. Might matter that the team pulled him early to avoid a 3rd time through. I'm sure there'll be another excuse made to throw that out too.

 

I guess this is how this is going to go. You're going to throw out or make excuses for anything you don't want to see. Oh Tommy John, oh only 10 IP, oh CS. Those are small fragments of the picture. There is a long formed picture though. Every step of the way, A+ to MLB as a starter he has been mediocre. 4.5s (but the stats lie and his K/BB/BABIP yadda yadda). Why at every level are the stats lying? Why at every level is the production better when his starts are SHORT or he's out of the pen. EVERY SINGLE STOP. But the 3rd time through sample size is small, sure is, but it sure looks to repeat itself with him every step of the way. Maybe it has something to do with 2 FBs as his only good pitches.

 

You can take pieces of numbers and metrics out of tons of players and point to why they should be great. You are paralyzing yourself with a narrow view data hunt. The truth is in the full body of work. K/BB does not make you a starter. May point toward MLB talent but doesn't make you a starter. Surely doesn't overshadow that he has years of work as a starter and no matter what the level they've been stagnant and mediocre. His BABIP and strand % has moved considerably in the right direction at the MLB level. Still putting up 4.5 as a starter.

 

What do you prefer. 3.2 2IP reliever or 4.5 5 IP starter? I know my answer.

 

I hear K/BB ad nauseam from Clacy on every single MiLB pitcher. You know how many of those guys never show up? It's a nice stat. It doesn't project much.

[TJseven7]

He throws two drastically different fastballs (In terms of launch angle, exit velocity, whiff %, location), saying "a good FB 67%" doesn't really convey the picture. So I disagree with the premise, but even then I would say that if you throw "a" pitch 67% of the time that's not just good, but elite (Fangraphs pitch value has it as the 10th best fastball among pitchers with 100+ IP), the rest can be mediocre and you can still have starter stuff.

 

Your "mountain of evidence" includes looking at ERA from Colorado Springs, IP/start in the 2017 Arizona Fall League (Which, in addition to the short starts in general in the AFL pointed out above, was also 16 months after having Tommy John Surgery), using 46 PAs to categorically state he's much worse 3rd time through the order (And with how the Brewers use starters, the fact that he's equally good 2nd time through as 1st should be an argument for, not against, starting). You also point out August 2019 as an example of why he's not a starter, a month where he averaged 5 2/3 IP/start with a 2.54 ERA. Now clearly I know you actually meant September/October, but if you're cherry picking months then I'll take that same liberty. But let's look at September, where batters hit .220/.283/.352 against him. Something that wasn't BABIP-driven (.305), and where he put up the best SO/W ratio of any month. I'll take a .634 OPS against, with an 11.1 K/9 and 2.60 BB/9 any day from my starters. That it, in those 24 innings, happened to result in a (still better than league average) ERA of 4.44 shouldn't be the takeaway. Raw ERA with no regard for context or sample size isn't a good way to evaluate pitchers.

 

I'll give you the 2 different FBs. However those 2 pitches are 67% (31-36) of his offerings and their velocity is nearly identical. You put those 2 FBs 95-95 with his averageish CB 80 and he's a very nice reliever. Even calling both of those FBs each a plus pitch and calling the CB average is RP stuff. You can live on an elite FB and below average other offerings and be a starter? Tell that to 2018 Peralta. His FB graded elite in 2018. His starter ERA was 4.4. Didn't help him in 2019.

 

I was pointing to his last 6 starts not August as you said. It wasn't meant to cherry pick it was said because I've heard this story that he struggled as a starter because he wasn't stretched out. He was stretched out then so I figured it might matter. Might matter that the team pulled him early to avoid a 3rd time through. I'm sure there'll be another excuse made to throw that out too.

 

I guess this is how this is going to go. You're going to throw out or make excuses for anything you don't want to see. Oh Tommy John, oh only 10 IP, oh CS. Those are small fragments of the picture. There is a long formed picture though. Every step of the way, A+ to MLB as a starter he has been mediocre. 4.5s (but the stats lie and his K/BB/BABIP yadda yadda). Why at every level are the stats lying? Why at every level is the production better when his starts are SHORT or he's out of the pen. EVERY SINGLE STOP. But the 3rd time through sample size is small, sure is, but it sure looks to repeat itself with him every step of the way. Maybe it has something to do with 2 FBs as his only good pitches.

 

You can take pieces of numbers and metrics out of tons of players and point to why they should be great. You are paralyzing yourself with a narrow view data hunt. The truth is in the full body of work. K/BB does not make you a starter. May point toward MLB talent but doesn't make you a starter. Surely doesn't overshadow that he has years of work as a starter and no matter what the level they've been stagnant and mediocre. His BABIP and strand % has moved considerably in the right direction at the MLB level. Still putting up 4.5 as a starter.

 

What do you prefer. 3.2 2IP reliever or 4.5 5 IP starter? I know my answer.

 

I hear K/BB ad nauseam from Clacy on every single MiLB pitcher. You know how many of those guys never show up? It's a nice stat. It doesn't project much.

[Lathund]

When you make an argument you call it evidence or FACTS. When others make an argument you call it excuses. Looking at things beyond raw ERA, and taking the size of the sample into account, is not excuses, it's necessary. K/BB keeps getting brought up because it's both one of the most predictive stats we have, and it's one that stabilizes much earlier than most others. ERA is the very opposite of that, because of things like defense, sequencing and BABIP. So when I'm comparing his 81 IP SP sample with a 46 IP RP sample I look at the stats that we know from research are the most reliable in such small samples. When that just gets dismissed as "making excuses", "yadda yadda" and just overall a very negative and dismissive tone, I don't really see much of a point in continuing this, at the risk of both getting nowhere, and the risk that I start adapting the same tone. We'll just have to see what the future holds.

 

As for clancy, bringing him up isn't the argument you think it is. Firstly where he brings up K/BB (Or more specifically BB > K) is usually for hitters, where the statement "nice stat, doesn't project much" is actually somewhat applicable. It tells us the player has plate discipline, but that's only a part of what makes a hitter; for pitchers it's much more meaningful. But no, Clancy's issue isn't the reliance on K/BB on either side of the ball, among the surface level stats readily available for the minors it's a good start. The issue is looking at results without context (sound familiar?) and factoring in external factors / wishful thinking into it. Cam Roegner became our #1 prospect on the strength of a 2.16 ERA (With a 5.9 K/9) that he put up against opposition 2 years younger than him on average; an advanced 4-year College pitcher with some batted ball luck. Good ERA (irrespective of age or level or peripherals) by a late-round pick (Or otherwise compelling story or unconventional profile) = Clancy guy. So his issue in this case is more that he *doesn't* trust K/BB fully, in addition to a lack of context. Whereas those of us looking at K/BB for Adrian Houser look at the fact that he's doing that against MLB hitters, and that he's equally good at it starting and relieving.

[Lathund]

When you make an argument you call it evidence or FACTS. When others make an argument you call it excuses. Looking at things beyond raw ERA, and taking the size of the sample into account, is not excuses, it's necessary. K/BB keeps getting brought up because it's both one of the most predictive stats we have, and it's one that stabilizes much earlier than most others. ERA is the very opposite of that, because of things like defense, sequencing and BABIP. So when I'm comparing his 81 IP SP sample with a 46 IP RP sample I look at the stats that we know from research are the most reliable in such small samples. When that just gets dismissed as "making excuses", "yadda yadda" and just overall a very negative and dismissive tone, I don't really see much of a point in continuing this, at the risk of both getting nowhere, and the risk that I start adapting the same tone. We'll just have to see what the future holds.

 

As for clancy, bringing him up isn't the argument you think it is. Firstly where he brings up K/BB (Or more specifically BB > K) is usually for hitters, where the statement "nice stat, doesn't project much" is actually somewhat applicable. It tells us the player has plate discipline, but that's only a part of what makes a hitter; for pitchers it's much more meaningful. But no, Clancy's issue isn't the reliance on K/BB on either side of the ball, among the surface level stats readily available for the minors it's a good start. The issue is looking at results without context (sound familiar?) and factoring in external factors / wishful thinking into it. Cam Roegner became our #1 prospect on the strength of a 2.16 ERA (With a 5.9 K/9) that he put up against opposition 2 years younger than him on average; an advanced 4-year College pitcher with some batted ball luck. Good ERA (irrespective of age or level or peripherals) by a late-round pick (Or otherwise compelling story or unconventional profile) = Clancy guy. So his issue in this case is more that he *doesn't* trust K/BB fully, in addition to a lack of context. Whereas those of us looking at K/BB for Adrian Houser look at the fact that he's doing that against MLB hitters, and that he's equally good at it starting and relieving.