THT takes a look at K-Rod's and Putz's future fantasy value

The Hardball Times takes a look at future fantasy value of two of the newest Mets.
They also take a look at past performances translated to the Mets; determine Frankie will pitch the same, Putz to regress.

about 3 years ago BlackOps 12 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Someone please explain to me

this sentence: “While Safeco Field has a general reputation as more of a pitcher’s park, it actually inflates strikeouts by a huge nine percent”

How the hell does a park inflate strikeouts? I understand a park inflating HR, doubles, triples, etc, based on wall angles, distances, foul ground, wind, etc. But how can a park have any effect on strikeouts (except in the vague sense that a park with smaller foul ground would have more foul balls, less foul outs, and therefore more opportunities for K’s, but that seems like it would have at best a minimal impact).

by cjmulrain on Dec 11, 2008 11:19 PM EST reply actions

I remember reading a while back

when we signed Cameron that the wall behind the pitcher in CF makes it tough to see the baseball as compared to other backgrounds hitters have. I don’t recall if it’s a lighting thing, color of the wall, angle of it.

by Sokojoe on Dec 12, 2008 12:01 PM EST up reply actions

Opps...

should have read below, comment withdrawn.

by Sokojoe on Dec 12, 2008 12:02 PM EST up reply actions

"How the hell does a park inflate strikeouts?"

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that.

Honestly, THT is usually exceptional, but I thought that article sucked. Plus, I take it with a grain of salt, it was geared towards fantasy baseball.

by SQUAD on Dec 11, 2008 11:33 PM EST reply actions

Park-inflated strikeouts

Hey guys,
That’s my article you’re referring to, so I thought I’d clear some things up. Parks do indeed inflate strikeouts, as crazy as it might sound at first. I’d direct you to this article by David Gassko: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batted-balls-and-park-effects/

To quote: “It has long been known that parks affect strikeouts, but it’s nice to finally know just how great the effect is and where it’s most important. Given the presence of the Marlins and Mariners at the top of the list, and the Rockies and Diamondbacks near the bottom, it seems that humidity is one of the biggest determinants of strikeout park effects.”

As far as the article “sucking,” that’s definitely for readers to make up their own minds about. I would be curious to know what you didn’t like about it, if there was something beyond the park factors for strikeouts.

Thanks!

by DerekCarty on Dec 12, 2008 12:19 AM EST reply actions

obviously the "suck" comment was just to bait you to join AA

You’re articles are awesome Derek, keep them up. I do wish you had included fantasy market analysis and rough projections, although it might not be necessary with K-Rod being top-tier and Putz a set-up man.

by Sam Page on Dec 12, 2008 2:11 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks for the kind words, samt

Yeah, I didn’t include the market analysis and projections mostly for the reasons you said, but also because there were just so many moves to write about this week (in addition to dealing with finals and other non-baseball stuff) that I was under a bit of a time crunch. I also didn’t want the article to run too long, because I’d originally wrote it as one long piece and then split it into two.

by DerekCarty on Dec 12, 2008 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting

that seems really counter-intuitive to me, but numbers are numbers. And sorry if my post implied your article was bad, I didn’t mean that at all, that one sentence just jumped out at me.

by cjmulrain on Dec 12, 2008 3:09 AM EST up reply actions

I could buy that humidity issue

I remember reading that one of the reasons why offensive numbers get inflated in Colorado is because pitchers’ breaking stuff doesn’t break as well there. I was under the impression it was due to the thin air but I guess it could be humidity too. And ineffective breaking pitches certainly could depress strikeouts.

by JoshNY on Dec 12, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions

Here's my thing

Don’t guys with forkballs/splits see less of a disparity in how their stuff plays from park to park? I thought I remembered reading how the Rockies were looking to fill out their staff with those kinds of pitcher.

The reason I didn’t care for the article was because you seemed to rely completely on 2008 when discussing his control numbers. You reference the injury and say it “may” have been the cause of his control issues. Looking at his career stats, I would say the injury was the probable cause of the control issues.

If your point was that you don’t think Putz will rebound or that he will regress some coming to the NL, then say so. I thought you started out with an interesting point as to why Putz may regress, but then you hedged your bets.

Just my take and I have never read any of your other articles, so you could be a fantastic writer for all I know.

by SQUAD on Dec 12, 2008 11:45 AM EST up reply actions

Coors Effect, Further Putz Explanation

Josh Kalk looked at how the dynamics of Coors affect pitches here: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-to-pack-for-denver/

Great read if you guys are interested (I think that’s the article you’re referring to, JoshNY), and it definitely meshes with David’s article. Essentially, four-seamers are affected the least by the humidity and air and such, which is even more amazing for a guy like Aaron Cook to do what he does. That sinker would be nasty pitching full-time somewhere else.

SQUAD, splitters probably would work well. We see that pitches lose a good deal of horizontal movement (look at the Lowe chart), but since splitters get a lot to begin with, a good splitter might still look like a good change-up in Coors.

As to Putz, I wouldn’t fault anyone for saying that the injury was the ‘probable cause’ of his control numbers, though I’m not sure if I would go quite that far. We can’t ignore the numbers completely, though, and need to factor them in to an extent if we are forecasting Putz in 2009. There is absolutely a non-zero chance that Putz’s control issues were not attributable to any sort of injury.

Sorry if it came across that I was hedging my bets. I suppose in a sense I was, but when you’re making a forecast for a guy like Putz that’s sort of inherent in the process. Unless you have very solid information for one side or the other (like if you’re a medical professional and have analyzed Putz yourself), you have to weight each side and come up with a projection somewhere in between. If it seemed like my writing was hedging bets, it’s probably because of this. I may not give the concrete answer some would like, but giving a concrete answer would be irresponsible since I haven’t examined Putz and can’t say with absolute certainty that either 2007 is the real Putz or 2008 is the real Putz. That’s just the way the forecasting process works.

by DerekCarty on Dec 12, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions