Help Wanted: Research Assistant for Marty Noble
With apologies for stepping on Jessica's toes here, in his latest mailbag, Marty Noble gets asked a pretty dumb question:
What do you think about bringing back Oliver Perez as a closer? He is a strikeout pitcher who thrives in pressure situations, and he would come cheaper than Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes.
-- Erick E., San Marcos, Calif.
There are a couple of big problems with doing as Erick (?) E. has suggested. The first, as Noble will deftly point out, is that Perez has terrible control, and short of a propensity for allowing homeruns, poor control is one of the last things you want a closer to specialize in. Perhaps more important is that Perez is likely to make something in the affluent neighborhood of $15 million a season on the open market, for five years or so. I don't think I'm exaggerating this number, either.
If we accept that Perez is in line for a five-year, $75 million contract, why would the Mets pony up that kind of scratch for a closer? Furthermore, if they were actually inclined to spend that on a closer, why would they spend it on Perez, who has never closed, instead of Francisco Rodriguez, who is a terrific closer, albeit a bit overvalued right now?
Here's Noble's response
Typically, closers throw strikes. Are you sure you want Perez -- 105 walks in 194 innings -- closing? He's not that much of a strikeout pitcher. And this image that has been created, that he is a big-game pitcher, fascinates me. What is its origin? Perez can beat any team on days when he has command and lose to any team when he doesn't. I suspect the stature of his opponent or the significance of the game has less to do with it.
In short, you'll never see him as a closer.
The emphasis is mine, and is also the reason for this post's title. Without even looking it up I know that for all of the things Oliver Perez is not, what he is is a strikeout pitcher. How much of a strikeout pitcher? To reverse paraphrase Marty Noble, he is much of a strikeout hitter. It took me five seconds at Baseball Musings' Day-by-Day database to look it up.
Since 2004, Oliver Perez is third in strikeouts per nine innings among all pitchers with at least 750 innings pitched (roughly 150 innings per season, intended to include starters only). Third! His 9.11 strikeout rate over that period trails only Jake Peavy (9.38) and Johan Santana (9.33), and is ahead of Randy Johnson (9.01), A.J. Burnett (8.83), Ben Sheets, Josh Beckett, and many, many more.
I'm not going to throw a blanket over mainstream media or even Marty Noble's catalog of work, most of which is quite good, but this is exactly the reason that a lot of people have begun tuning out sportswriters and commentators of late. Avoiding this sort of error would have taken a mere five seconds of research that some intern at MLB.com would have gladly done to avoid making yet another pot of coffee or picking up Matt Vasgersian's dry cleaning.
0 recs |
24 comments
|
Comments
I do commend
Noble for saying that he does not believe the notion that Perez is a “big game pitcher.” While some data or something would have been nice to back the latter assertion, at least he is going against the majority on something. Though I should point out that Noble has been dead to me ever since a mailbag where he could not understand how the Mets would replace Trachsel’s 15 wins in 2006.
by Sokojoe on Nov 10, 2008 4:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What the hell
Marty Noble’s work isn’t anywhere close to “good.”
Not even occasionally.
"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-
by future on Nov 10, 2008 5:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Most of which is quite good
Eric, I think this is the first time anyone besides Marty Noble’s mother described his work as “quite good.” A quick look at blastingsthrilledge.blogspot.com linked me to some of Noble’s gems. Some of the many, many stupid things that Marty Noble has said include:
“Schneider is a definite upgrade over Estrada” http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071130&content_id=2314337&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym&partnered=rss_nym
“I understand how you feel. You won’t be the only one who senses Lo Duca’s absence. He was approachable, insightful and candid.” http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071126&content_id=2307362&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym&partnered=rss_nym
“Injuries to key players like Xavier Nady, Shawn Green, and Moises Alou” http://blastingsthrilledge.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-03-18T103A143A00-06%3A00&max-results=7
In closing, Marty Noble is a terrible writer and an even worse human being. I hope he dies a sabermetric-related death.
by ams258 on Nov 10, 2008 5:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
And worst of all...
“Eckstein is widely recognized as one of baseball’s foremost gamers.” http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071117&content_id=2302425&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym
by ams258 on Nov 10, 2008 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
P.S.
Use the link button to hyperlink those URLs to text instead of just pasting the URL right into the comment. I love ya, but your comments are practically unreadable as a result.
by Eric Simon on Nov 10, 2008 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love you too, Eric.
So much that I promise to use the link button from now on.
by ams258 on Nov 11, 2008 9:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
None of what he is saying is wrong.
Estrada barely played in the majors this year and when he did it was with the Nats who are barely a major league team. As much as it sucked to watch Schneider this year, he was an upgrade over Estrada.
Lo Duca was a sportswriters dream because he gave them so much material to work with. And even though statistics show he is at best a league average player, many “baseball insiders” consider Eckstein the gamiest gamer who ever gamed.
I didn’t see the context of the injury quote (maybe I’m missing something) so I’ll reserve comment on that one.
by Reg Dunlop on Nov 10, 2008 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ack
He’s a terrible writer and a worse human being? Noble and I may disagree on many points of baseball analysis, but he is actually a very capable writer and does a fine job covering the Mets beat. I can’t speak to his qualities as a human being, but I suspect you might be overstating your case. He can be prickly at times when defending the crumbling walls of old-school baseball journalism, but that hardly qualifies him for eternal damnation (if you believe in that sort of thing).
by Eric Simon on Nov 10, 2008 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Noble
Exactly right. Noble is not much of an analyst, but I do think he’s a very good beat writer. He writes with a straightforward, clear tone and gets along well with the team.
I have spoken with three or four people who have dealt with Noble, and all found him to be very helpful and pleasant.
by Alex Nelson on Nov 10, 2008 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I may have been exaggerating a little
or a lot
by ams258 on Nov 11, 2008 9:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What's wrong with the LoDuca comment?
As a writer, I trust his determination that LoDuca was "approachable, insightful and candid." – If he was using that as a basis for LoDuca being a great player, that’s a problem, but he was clearly using it to suggest that LoDuca was ::gasp:: approachable, insightful, and candid! OMIGOD it’s a journalist who’s framing a baseball player as a human….SHOOT HIM
by cjmulrain on Nov 10, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"a big game pitcher"
I’m not saying I agree with the assertion that Perez is a big game pitcher, but:
I think it’s pretty clear where the idea comes from. Since coming to the Mets, he’s been pretty good against the Braves, pretty good against the Phils (more precisely, very good against them this year but less so in 2007), and exceptional against the Yankees. That’s our longtime nemesis, our closest division rival, and our local rival. The games against the Yankees generally get a lot of attention, the media being what it is, and he’s 4-0 against them over the last two years and pitched four pretty good games (game scores 67, 75, 64, 71) on the way to doing so.
So while I don’t personally buy the notion that Perez is a big game pitcher*, I think it’s pretty clear that those games are where the rep comes from, deserved or not. Even so, Jack Morris was a “big game pitcher” and I’d much rather have Bert Blyleven and his 250 losses on my team.
* I think Noble is accurate in saying that he can beat anyone when he has good command and lose to anyone when he doesn’t; but, of course, the underlying issue is whether and why he has good command in important games. I mean, if you were a “Jeter is clutch” naysayer, you would say, “Jeter isn’t a clutch hitter; he can hit against anyone when he has good at-bats and strike out against anyone when he doesn’t” just as easily as what Noble said above. The Jeter lovers would then respond by saying “well, look at the good at-bats he’s had in big spots – he elevates his game! and he’s so dreamy!” What Noble is essentially saying is “he’s good when he’s pitching effectively and bad when he’s not” which is a truism. The relevant thing to do would be to look at when those things happen and see if there’s any correlation with “big games” and Noble basically punts on that issue.
by JoshNY on Nov 10, 2008 7:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
don't forget
Game 7. He was phenomenal in that game, which I believe is where the “big game” stuff first started.
by cjmulrain on Nov 10, 2008 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
James Shields was "big game" too
Unless you’re Mariano Rivera*, you can’t be looked at as big-game. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Oh yeah, there was that one time when he was pitching and his team lost a World Series. :(
I think all of us agree, the best pitchers in big situations are the better ones.
Who's world is it? It's yours.
by BlackOps on Nov 13, 2008 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Erick(?)
As a fellow Eric I have always wondered about the CK Erics. It’s like thier parents couldn’t decide on whether they should use the C or the K. so they went with both.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on Nov 10, 2008 9:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
No clue
I’ve seen Erichs, Ericks, Ericks and they all look weird to me.
by Eric Simon on Nov 10, 2008 10:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know one eriCK
and his name was actually shortened from Frederick. His dad went by Fred, so they gave him the same long name, but shortened it to Erick to make it easier.
by cjmulrain on Nov 10, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that
actually makes sense.
who is screening those mailbag questions? that was one of the dumber ideas I’ve ever heard, in the realm of “let’s move our stud prospect SS to 2B to accommodate Kaz Matsui.” Or “Piazza will be fine at first. Anyone can play 1B”
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on Nov 11, 2008 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Erick Johan Aybar
Nice ring.
Who's world is it? It's yours.
by BlackOps on Nov 13, 2008 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In Marty's defense
Perhaps he meant to emphasize the word ‘that’, as in: “He’s not that much of a strikeout pitcher.” Meaning he is not enough of a strikeout pitcher to compensate for his propensity to walk as evidenced by his 1.1 K/BB.
Sorry to be a party-pooper, but thought I’d throw it out there.
by sux2lose on Nov 11, 2008 4:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
If Marty comes to me and indicates as much, I’ll gladly issue a retraction.
by Eric Simon on Nov 11, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs


















