Cliff Lee and Delusions

I do hate to contribute to one more piece to the internet’s glut of Cliff Lee chatter, but I’ve been somewhat baffled by some Giant fans’ response to the Cliff Lee signing. There’s a vocal minority (or perhaps even a majority) that seem to think that even after the Cliff Lee signing the Giants have a better rotation than the Phillies do.

I get why people are reacting this way. All Giant fans are justly proud of their starting pitching. It is certainly the strength of the team and, save for one expensive back end decoration, completely a product of the farm system.  Of course, some of the reaction is just meaningless, (yet hilarious) smack talk. I, for one, have not gotten tired of mentioning how the Giants beat Cliff Lee twice in the World Series. Because the Giants beat Cliff Lee twice in the World Series.  They did. Then he made this face:

But there’s pride, there’s fun and then there’s straight delusion.  And it is delusional to insist that the Phillies aren’t going into next year with the best rotation in baseball. Here’s a quick list of things that I think contribute to this delusion.

Being overly sure about what Madison Bumgarner projects to be. I like Madison Bumgarner. I think he’s going to be a very good pitcher . This is mainly because I think when his velocity is in the low to mid-nineties he’ll look more like what he projected to be in 2008 and 2009 than the up and down version in 2010. But that’s not much more than a guess, and a bit of a sunshine, lollipops and rainbows  sort of guess at that. We have no idea whether he can keep his mechanics together for a whole season or whether he has the endurance to get through a whole season.  Pencilling him in as a pitcher in the same class as Oswalt, Cain and Hamels is placing a pretty unfair expectation on the kid.

Overvaluing Jonathan Sanchez. The Phillies’ top four and the Giants top two starters are all elite level or at least very good pitchers.  Jonathan Sanchez isn’t at that level, he’s just good. And good is good! I remember when I had to work hard to convince other Giants fans that he wasn’t a worthless, weak-minded sack of crap. It’s actually kind of a pleasure to point out that no, he isn’t quite as good as Roy Oswalt or Cole Hamels. Which he’s not.  Sanchez still walks a lot of hitters, and while he did get deeper into games this year, he posted fewer IP than noted non-horse Barry Zito.

Projecting growth that’s not likely to happen. Lots of people have gone around saying that Giants pitchers are younger, and therefore likely to still improve. That may happen, but it’s not likely to happen. While hitters tend to peak in their late twenties, pitchers do not age along such a curve. According to MGL, the average pitcher peaks in his early 20’s, which means that for most pitchers, their first year is their best one.

Using playoff performance to project the next season. Look, just don’t do this. David Eckstein is not a good hitter, but he put up the worst line of his career in 2003. Jeff Weaver pitched himself straight out of the major leagues in 2007. The fact that the Giants beat Cliff Lee twice and Roy Halladay once is pretty awesome*, but it doesn’t mean those guys aren’t fantastic pitchers. Even ignoring the whole using the playoffs for projection issue, we needed a couple pretty stellar games from Tim Lincecum to go 3-1 against those guys. Unless someone completed my Clone Tim Lincecum Ray Gun project for me while I was at work, he can’t face both Lee and Halladay back to back.

If being rated as the best starting staff in baseball is super important to you as a fan, you might want to hang your hat on Jeff Zimmerman’s interesting new work on pitcher injuries. His data indicates that experienced pitchers in their mid-to-late 20’s have less risk of injury than experienced pitchers in their mid 30’s. This is fairly new stuff, and I’m a little skeptical of his statistical model, but his conclusions accord well with common sense.

The Giants still have a great pitching staff, and we don’t really need to make any overly optimistic assertions to help them out. The Phillies set out to surpass them, and at the moment – the easiest moment, the one where no one has played any games- they have.

*:

Article written by

24 comments
jokingjoe
jokingjoe

What Adam C said. Giants still have the best pitching staff. Guys, this is rather obvious. The Phillies now have a better starting rotation than the Giants. This is not really an arguable point on paper. Would I rather have the Giants' rotation over the long run? Of course, because they are much younger (Zito aside) and will be better for a much longer time, but we are talking about 2011 here, nothing else. At the same time, the Giants have the best staff overall -- our relief squad is head and shoulders above the Fightins' few, and this difference is more than enough to tilt the balance in favor of the Giants overall.

Adam C
Adam C

Are we just talking a bout the Giants vs Phillies front four starters or the entire pitching staffs? Obviously, if it's just the front four then the Phillies have the edge. But if we are comparing the entire pitching staffs the Giants are better. In 2010 the Giants staff led the National League in IP, fewest hits allowed, ERA, ERA+, K's, lowest H/9, lowest K/9 and saves. The Giants were second in runs allowed just two more than the Padres. There were third in HR's allowed. The Phillies led the National League in fewest walks, BB/9. WHIP, complete games and shutouts. Adding Cliff Lee obviously helps. But the Giants as a team allowed fewer hits, fewer HR's, strike out more, and allow fewer runs. I'm confident that in 2011 this will continue to be true.

Otis Anderson
Otis Anderson

Just the starting rotation. I don't see a lot to like in the Philly bullpen.

Adam C
Adam C

I meant highest k/9 in my previous post.

c1ue
c1ue

I'll say it before, I'll say it again: While the Phillies rotation looks good from a backward looking standpoint - the reality is that 3 of the 4 are getting into those 'long in the tooth' ages. Even beyond the chance of injury - Oswalt with his back problems, Halladay with his groin pulls (2009, WS), and Lee with his abdominal pulls (3 since 2003, 6 weeks or more out) - all 3 pitchers are extremely unlikely to even replicate their recent run of post 31 good to great performances. Injury for the Giants' pitching staff of course is always possible as well, but the age differences and relative lack of history are very significant. The Phillies offense also took a very clear downturn thus far - and with their payroll already 2nd or at worst 3rd in all of baseball it isn't clear just how they are going to stay even with 2009, much less improve. Let's not forget Philadelphia was plagued by injuries early in 2010 as well...

Giant among Angels
Giant among Angels

Nice post, OJ. I have to agree that the "We beat Lee twice in the WS" has run it's course. It was fun because the championship was so fresh, but now it's time to come back down a bit.

araofthemark
araofthemark

"I, for one, have not gotten tired of mentioning how the Giants beat Cliff Lee twice in the World Series. Because the Giants beat Cliff Lee twice in the World Series. " I have thought this with a HUGE smile on my face so many times since the series. You are right though, we had a better rotation, now, they do. The Halladay /Lee combination is ridiculous.... RIDICULOUS. I think we may forget Halladay threw a perfect game last year, and a no-hitter in the playoffs. There have been eight post-season pitching performances of at least 10 strikeouts and no walks in baseball history. Lee has pitched the last four. Lee has a no-hitter as well. Lincecum/Cain < Halladay/Lee Unfortunatly Sanchez/Bumgarner < Hammels/Oswalt Obviously

Orville
Orville

Nice article and in general I agree...However, the big unmentioned issue is the quality of a team's offense...If a pitcher is facing an overall weaker team with a consistent bunch of hitters that are like Scheirholtz or Rohlinger for example, then the pitcher of the other team is in a better position to prevail and obviously their stats will look better. Obviously the inverse is true. Both teams by and large have good to great pitchers and the Phils stable of pitchers has a longer history with overall better statistics. The Giant's pitchers are all still pretty young , (though the Phil's Hamels is 26 I believe). I think an important variable to watch will be the quality of each team's offense in 2011 before further conclusions can be reached about which team is better in head to head competitions.

Merkled
Merkled

I agree with bigboneded that you try and separate this into fan enthusiasm vs. WAR. It is a nice way to make your argument sound better but it is not a way to support it. Create the strawman and then try and tear it down; it doesn’t work with fans that are able to separate their feelings for the team, and analyze what they see with their eyes. "Of course, some of the reaction is just meaningless, (yet hilarious) smack talk." This is garbage......but it is amusing. "While hitters tend to peak in their late twenties, pitchers do not age along such a curve. According to MGL, the average pitcher peaks in his early 20’s, which means that for most pitchers, their first year is their best one." If you look at the report carefully, it actually makes the argument for those who say the Giants have the better rotation right now.....not taking these 3 philly pitchers in a Delorean, but right now heading into 2011.

Otis Anderson
Otis Anderson

It's actually kinda fair to call this a strawman. I don't think ALL of the arguments about the Giants pitching superiority are terrible, just these ones. I just wanted to corral a few of the ones that had wandered too far off pasture, plus highlight one argument that I did find interesting (and overlooked). But once you discard the terrible arguments, the ones that are left still don't really hold enough weight to support the opinion that the Giants have the better starting rotation right now, from any standpoint, statistical or otherwise.

Merkled
Merkled

The interesting thing here is that I think we are both arguing about something that may be equal. Both rotations are strong and both teams will be stronger in 2011. The only thing we can do at this point is watch what happens and we will then see if your numbers heading into the season told the story. Since I rely more on what I have seen, and my evaluation based on what I know about baseball, I think there will be a different story told in 2011. Halladay and Oswalt will carry that team again being great pitchers, and Lee and Hamels will be the bottom two and be good. Halladay and Oswalt got stronger while Lee struggled. Is it age/injury? Is it pitching styles? Is it stuff? For me it looks like all of them together is bringing him down off of his peak 3 years. Does that mean he isnt a good pitcher? Of course not. He is a good pitcher but I believe he will come back down to earth. In a 7 game series I honestly want guys who I know can deliver, and right now I know the Giants rotation can deliver in a 7 game series. No numbers can show me that the Phillies 4 can deliver in 7........it has to be proven. July 26-28 in Philly and then August 4-7 in SF If I am wrong I will be here, ready to eat crow and surrender to Voltron. Now......can we talk about how disrespected Renteria feels about $1m please?

bigboneded38
bigboneded38

The Giants won the World Series. Your argument is invalid. Just kidding...but is now really the time for restraint? Can't we wait until something real happens, like the Phillies come in to our park and sweep us behind Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, and Hamels? Also...what you are saying is great on paper, but what have the pitchers you are speaking of, on both sides, done head to head? The Giants fans that want to make statements that are, in your mind and through your analysis unsubstantiated, do, in fact have a sound basis for their argument...they watched it play out. And in their minds, all the Phillies did was add a pitcher who the Giants beat on the grandest stage. Twice. While I don't necessarily disagree with you when you separate certain statistics from conjecture (WAR vs. fan enthusiasm), it's kind of hard to deny what we all saw play out in 2010.

Otis Anderson
Otis Anderson

the main thing I thought about after reading this comment, is how giddy will I be if at some point next season the Giants do manage to take back to back games from Lee and Halladay? Answer: freaking giddy.

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

>> While I don’t necessarily disagree with you when you separate certain statistics from conjecture (WAR vs. fan enthusiasm), it’s kind of hard to deny what we all saw play out in 2010. No one is saying to deny that the Giants beat Lee twice in the World Series. What we are saying is that it doesn't tell us anything about how Lee is going to pitch in 2011.

obsessivegiantscompu
obsessivegiantscompu

Nice article. I'm torn by the logic of both sides. I believe in our pitchers. But as you stated well here, the Phillies are an experienced bunch of pitchers with a lot of success on their resume. Have to respect that. But it struck me as, well, odd or maybe contradictory, that in the other post on the Giants being geezers, you noted that pitchers peak young and don't necessarily get better with age. The Phillies rotation is all geezers, and as that article about pitchers DL notes, much higher odds of older pitchers DLing than younger. Shouldn't that logically bring them closer to where the Giants pitchers are, perhaps making our rotation more competitive/comparable? So just because they have performed well does not mean that they will continue to do so (per your point on early peak). What does the projections on Fangraph note for their current five man, including Blanton for now I guess, but rumors is that he'll be traded, so I suppose Kendricks is their #5 starter, that would be interesting to see. And that gets me to another point that I think people are missing, most statements talk about their Top 4 being the best, but baseball today isn't about 4 man rotations, it is 5 man rotations. And the Giants 5-man including Zito is pretty good and comparable, particularly if they are going with Kendricks as their #5 starter. But I get your point, respect your elder vets, but I don't think you need to be a homer to think that our rotation is at least in the ballpark - for a 5 man rotation - of the Phillies 5. I have some nits to pick on your arguments. First, you note Bumgarner's stamina as an issue. Why? He pitched 193.2 innings in the 2010 season plus 20.2 more innings in the playoffs and he ended with a brilliant 8 inning shutout of a strong offensive team in one of the most extreme hitters park in the majors outside of Colorado throwing 95 MPH during the game. That suggests that he was able to keep his mechanics pretty well throughout a season, he was only off his first couple of starts. In addition, you say it is just wishful thinking (you used much more eloquent phrases) to think Bumgarner is this good. Bill James invented something called MLE and in 2009, by Baseball Forecaster's methodology for MLE, Bumgarner in AA put together a 2.32 ERA in 107 IP. Don't have his 2010 MLEs, but in the majors he had a 3.00 ERA while compiling a 3.16 ERA in AAA. That is two years of great performances at the highest levels of baseball (BF says that MLE only work for AA and AAA performances), why is it "not much more than a guess, and a bit of a sunshine, lollipops and rainbows sort of guess at that." If that is a guess, then you are saying that most of the saber-analysis is a guess too. His tERA was 3.59 and xFIP 4.03. Sure, that is not as good as his 3-ish ERA for 2010, but Hamels career ERA is 3.53, which Bumgarner is in the ballpark of. Regarding Sanchez, I can buy most of what you wrote. Yes, he hasn't proven he is as good as those pitchers. That is the old vet is better than young rubric, as well, no? I would add that a high walk rate is not as negative as most people think it is. THT studied this once and found that between pitchers with K/BB > 2.0, those with high K/high BB had better ERAs than those with low K/low BB. But yeah, so far, he has not proven to be as good as the pitchers in question, but as you noted, still pretty good overall. Regarding growth, not really growth, but Lincecum had a down season, and there are reasons - improved conditioning, new slider - to think that he will have another Cy Young caliber season. So that will be an improvement from his end. And while I can buy that the average pitcher peaks in his early 20's, I don't believe that holds for good or better pitchers: they learn, they get experienced, they improve. I agree that pitching is not a position where growth will necessarily come with age, but for the good pitchers, there will be growth as they learn and get more experienced. That is how they become good. Lee was nowhere nears what Sanchez is today at the same age, he figured something out and improved. And we have seen growth clearly with Sanchez, but Cain has grown as well, and Lincecum is constantly changing, it seems. Lastly, I agree that projecting playoff performance is folly at best. SSS overpowers everything. However, when the performances there are not out of character when placed in context with relation to how they did during the season, that is not really a projection from the playoffs only, it projects from what they did during the season. Still, your admonition holds, in SSS anything can and will happen, look at Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, one season, great performances, they won the World Series, next season, I think they might have been pushed out in the first series. Good job.

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

>>> Create the strawman and then try and tear it down; it doesn’t work with fans that are able to separate their feelings for the team, and analyze what they see with their eyes. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here . But, this a stat-y blog, I (generally) prefer numbers to my eyes. Hence, why I started this blog. And numbers have shown that basing anything off of a single game, or a series, is foolish and just plain wrong. An average baseball season is full of a million data points. It's unwise to limit ourselves to a single game or games. I think we've moved beyond that as baseball fans. I think my biggest thing with the Cliff Lee signing is this: It's not unfair, or inaccurate, or a slight against the Giants, to say that they have the better rotation. To use an overused phrase, it is what it is. The Giants have a very good rotation. The Phillies -- like Otis said, right now, on paper -- is better. There's no shame in that.

Merkled
Merkled

There is no shame in having the opinion that the Phillies are better on paper, but establishing that everyone else who says that the Giants have a better rotation as delusional is off-base. Originally I said there is no reason to crown them and fall all over ourselves because the Phillies stacked some great paper together. I agree they did. Like every other season when the Yankees, Heat, or Jets put together paper champions, we realize that the bundled stats don't correlate to who has the best of anything. In fact, this only makes us look deeper than what is on paper and use our knowledge of the game to digest what we see. Then, mix in a side of stats for a nice stew. We have moved past purely watching and we will never look back, but my eyes still work and I still trust them. I get this is a stat blog and I love it for that reason, but to say that any other opinion is delusional doesn't seem fair. I think stats should be used as a way to help us understand better what we see as fans of baseball. Stats should not be used alone to dictate what is the only valid argument.

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

I said basing things (ie: what kind of pitcher Lee will be in 2011) off of a single game or a couple of single games (World Series) is foolish. Not that anyone who disagreed with me is foolish or delusional. I'd like to think that I'm pretty open-minded with most other viewpoints. You might disagree. I've never wanted this site to be an echo chamber anyways. Seeing things is important, sure. But I think we sometimes fall into the habit of overemphasizing the things we see. I think the Cliff Lee World Series thing is a prime example of that. I'll put it this way: Give me some reasons why you don't think Cliff Lee will make the Phillies rotation better next year. I'd like a reason besides he's going to be 32-years-old and he "looked gassed" in the WS. Because, as far as I can tell, all of his components (stuff that predicts decline, velocity, strikeouts, walks, etc.) look solid. Pitchers do get hurt all the time but he doesn't seem like a huge injury risk. If you're specifically worried about injuries, well that argument cuts both ways -- the Giants pitchers are just as likely to get hurt and we just can't assume that they'll be fine. Just curious to why you think he doesn't push the Phillies past the Giants in 2011.

Merkled
Merkled

First let me clarify that the last comments were not directed at you but more towards Otis and the delusional pronouncement. The reason I come back to this blog again and again is that I enjoy your viewpoint and you never trash arguments from fans that are contrary. You are very open minded and we have disagreed before, like with the value of John Bowker (albeit not to this extent) vs. Javier Lopez but that is the fun that I find in this site. Hope that puts things in the right frame here.

Lars
Lars

I think this is where I post the ESPN prediction gif. ;-)

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

Also, for kicks -- here's WAR totals from 2008-10 for the Giants vs. Phillies SPs. Phillies (WAR, Rank) Halladay (21.5, 1) Lee (20.9, 2) Oswalt (11.2, 21) Hamels (11.9, 16) Giants (WAR, Rank) Lincecum (20.8, 3) Cain (11.9, 15) Sanchez (7.5, 43) Zito (5.7, 52) Bumgarner wasn't included because he hasn't pitched that much.

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

Brace for angry emails in 3, 2, 1.... (I really loved this post. I think you said what I was thinking, but better. Excellent work, Otis.) The whole "We beat him in the World Series! And that means something!" is a bit too much for me. The Series was great. I'm totally pumped (still!) that we won, but let's not go overboard.