Jump to content

Some thoughts about pitcher scarcity and age


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Thanks @Frobby.  The age tells me what I think many knew, that pitching develops with age, but throwing might peak around 25-27 like position players.

The scarcity function tells me you have two options:

1. Overpay for 2-4 wins, and that a pitching win is worth more than a positional win

2. Don't pay for pitching wins, and try to gain them with supplemental offense and defense.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MarCakes21 said:

Thanks @Frobby.  The age tells me what I think many knew, that pitching develops with age, but throwing might peak around 25-27 like position players.

The scarcity function tells me you have two options:

1. Overpay for 2-4 wins, and that a pitching win is worth more than a positional win

2. Don't pay for pitching wins, and try to gain them with supplemental offense and defense.

Wow, these are some profound propositions. Would be intriguing to see them fleshed out with data. I kind of imagine Sid & Mike must be all over it. And I suppose the course of this offseason will prove their intentions one way or another!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Frobby said:

I just had a look at the list of pitchers who managed to accumulate 2+ rWAR in 2022.   It amounts to 91 pitchers, only 68 of whom are starters.  Barely more than two starters per team.  So, when you are thinking about who is a “TOR starter,” or a “no. 2” or “no. 3” starter, think about that!

To break it down a little, 48 of the 91 pitchers (28 of the 68 starters) fell between 2.0-2.9 rWAR; 21 (18) between 3.0-3.9; 10 (all starters) between 4-4.9; 8 between 5.9-5.9; 3 between 6.0-6.9; and one lone pitcher (Alcantra) at 8.0.

The median age of the 91 pitchers is 28; same is true if you just look at the starters.  30 of the 91  (23 of the 68 starters) are at least 30 years old.  12 of the 91 (8 of the 68 starters) are 34 or older. 

Looking at some of the remaining free agents: 

Cueto at 3.5 was 32nd among SP.

Wacha at 3.3 rWAR was 35th.

Eovaldi at 1.5 was 80th.  

fWAR differs drastically - Cueto 2.4, Wacha 1.5, Eovaldi 1.0.   


 

Very interesting information and analysis.  I found myself wondering, how many O's pitchers made the list of 91, and how do their rWAR's compare.  

By comparison, Jordan Lyles was at 1.0 rWAR and Kyle Gibson was at 0.7 rWAR.

The Orioles only had 3 of the 91 pitchers with an rWAR >2.0, and those were Dean Kremer at 2.8, Cionel Perez at 2.8 and Felix Bautista at 2.6.

All of the sudden, signing a Cueto or Wacha seem a bit more palatable......assuming they are able to continue performing at their 2022 level.  Even if they were only HALF as good, their numbers would still be better than the ones below:

Other O's pitchers rWAR's:

Tate - 1.3

Baker - 1.2

Wells - 1.2

Akin - .8

Bradish - 0.4

Watkins - 0.1

Ryan McKenna - -0.1 🙂

Edited by Sanity Check
added one more sentence
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

Very interesting information and analysis.  I found myself wondering, how many O's pitchers made the list of 91, and how do their rWAR's compare.  

By comparison, Jordan Lyles was at 1.0 rWAR and Kyle Gibson was at 0.7 rWAR.

The Orioles only had 3 of the 91 pitchers with an rWAR >2.0, and those were Dean Kremer at 2.8, Cionel Perez at 2.8 and Felix Bautista at 2.6.

All of the sudden, signing a Cueto or Wacha seem a bit more palatable......assuming they are able to continue performing at their 2022 level.  Even if they were only HALF as good, their numbers would still be better than the ones below:

Other O's pitchers rWAR's:

Tate - 1.3

Baker - 1.2

Wells - 1.2

Akin - .8

Bradish - 0.4

Watkins - 0.1

Ryan McKenna - -0.1 🙂

Not only is the list of 2 WAR pitchers pretty limited, but the list of those who do it consistently is even more limited.   And needless to say, the ones available through free agency are even more limited than that.   By my quick count, only about 47 of the 91 pitchers managed 2.0 rWAR in each of the last two years.   I’d say 10-15 pitchers who managed 2.0 rWAR in 2021 either were below 0.0 in 2022, or didn’t pitch at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Frobby said:

I just had a look at the list of pitchers who managed to accumulate 2+ rWAR in 2022.   It amounts to 91 pitchers, only 68 of whom are starters.  Barely more than two starters per team.  So, when you are thinking about who is a “TOR starter,” or a “no. 2” or “no. 3” starter, think about that!

To break it down a little, 48 of the 91 pitchers (28 of the 68 starters) fell between 2.0-2.9 rWAR; 21 (18) between 3.0-3.9; 10 (all starters) between 4-4.9; 8 between 5.9-5.9; 3 between 6.0-6.9; and one lone pitcher (Alcantra) at 8.0.

The median age of the 91 pitchers is 28; same is true if you just look at the starters.  30 of the 91  (23 of the 68 starters) are at least 30 years old.  12 of the 91 (8 of the 68 starters) are 34 or older. 

Looking at some of the remaining free agents: 

Cueto at 3.5 was 32nd among SP.

Wacha at 3.3 rWAR was 35th.

Eovaldi at 1.5 was 80th.  

fWAR differs drastically - Cueto 2.4, Wacha 1.5, Eovaldi 1.0.   


 

Cueto and Wacha are likely to be better than Eovaldi.  I can't see giving Eovaldi 3 years, would much rather give Cueto or Wacha 1 year or even 1 year w/ an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes until 24 to find a relief pitcher. In top 40 only two relief arms. Not a big surprise but worth mentioning. Shows how much of an advantage it is to have quality SP. 
 

In the TOP 40 let’s first take out the 2 RP’s . One is Bard, the other is Diaz. Both are considered FA’s. Diaz was traded before he reached FA eligibility. He didn’t leave the team who acquired him -Mets- but did reach FA. 

Out of the 38 starters 10 are from trades, 13 FA, 12 amateur draft, 3 amateur FA’s. 
 

So take 15 from draft and International signings. 9/10 trades were of pitchers prior to being eligible for FA. Most of those arms were early on, prospect stage. Darvish is the exception. One FA was Kershaw who never left LAD but did reach FA.

Shows how impressive Houston was in how they built their rotation.  
 

So 24-38 of the top SP’s last year by rWAR had not yet been eligible for FA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Cueto and Wacha are likely to be better than Eovaldi.  I can't see giving Eovaldi 3 years, would much rather give Cueto or Wacha 1 year or even 1 year w/ an option.

I don't think there's a single underlying pitching metric which supports a claim that Cueto or Wacha will be better than Eovaldi. If you think they'll be better value on one year deals than Eovaldi on a three year deal that's fine, but they're definitely not better pitchers and neither one has Eovaldi's upside mostly because of their pathetic K/9 rates. 

Edited by HakunaSakata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Gibson at .7 rWAR.

Makes this deal, so crazy.

How do you find rWAR? Im familiar with oWAR and WAR, none of the stat places seam to show it, Im sure its something Im doing wrong.

Just wondering what Rodon's rWAR was.

Typically rWAR is just shorthand for Baseball Reference’s version of WAR — as compared to Fangraphs’s (fWAR).

The big difference in the two stats with pitchers comes from the fact that rWAR is based on how many runs you actually allowed (ERA), while fWAR is based on how many you “should” have allowed given your performance with the things you can primarily control (FIP). In theory, you’re likely best off looking at rWAR to see who was productive, but instead using fWAR to help predict who will be productive moving forward. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I thought Elias was only handing out 1 years?

Did he state that?  It's hard to believe they were "in" on the better FA pitchers and offering 1 year deals.  Can't wait to see what bottom feeder SP that Elias signs.  Funny that I thought Bassitt or a comparable starter was in play at the beginning of free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Typically rWAR is just shorthand for Baseball Reference’s version of WAR — as compared to Fangraphs’s (fWAR).

The big difference in the two stats with pitchers comes from the fact that rWAR is based on how many runs you actually allowed (ERA), while fWAR is based on how many you “should” have allowed given your performance with the things you can primarily control (FIP). In theory, you’re likely best off looking at rWAR to see who was productive, but instead using fWAR to help predict who will be productive moving forward. 

This explanation beat me to it.....but I couldn't find it either (after searching for 30 minutes), and then I finally googled what it was, and it's basically Baseball Reference's WAR value.  I also learned that different sites have different WAR values for the same player.....I would have thought they all used the same formula, but it appears that they don't.   I'm not smart enough to know which WAR calculation is more meaningful, but if @Frobby uses rWAR, then that's good enough for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Did he state that?  It's hard to believe they were "in" on the better FA pitchers and offering 1 year deals.  Can't wait to see what bottom feeder SP that Elias signs.  Funny that I thought Bassitt or a comparable starter was in play at the beginning of free agency.

I think we all need to take the term "in on" a free agent with a grain of salt when it's coming from the pundits.  I would liken it to something like, "Hey, we like your client a lot...on a discounted ONE year deal." 🙂

To think that "in on" means that we are in the running, or a finalist for a guy to sign with us is....let's just say, "mental manipulation", even though "manipulation" wasn't the word I was thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Typically rWAR is just shorthand for Baseball Reference’s version of WAR — as compared to Fangraphs’s (fWAR).

The big difference in the two stats with pitchers comes from the fact that rWAR is based on how many runs you actually allowed (ERA), while fWAR is based on how many you “should” have allowed given your performance with the things you can primarily control (FIP). In theory, you’re likely best off looking at rWAR to see who was productive, but instead using fWAR to help predict who will be productive moving forward. 

Thanks, appreciate it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...