April 2008 - Posts

• Adjusted Bullpen Stats for the Marlins Series

  Posted Apr 29 2008, 10:55 PM by radio silence

  The Brewers pen pitched very well against the Marlins in three close games, but once again experienced some blown tie games, which just seems to be the effects of their over usage. Luckily, they've received more 6 IP+ starts recently, hopefully that trend continues and this group of arms can rest.

  Adjusted Bullpen Stats April 25-27 

  Adjusted leads converted (5/8, 63%; season 37/49, 76%)

  Shouse: 1/1 (tie game)

  Gagne: 3/3 (two tie games, one SVO)

  Mota: 1/2 (one tie, tie opportunity)

  Torres: 0/1 (SVO)

  McClung: 0/1 (tie opportunity)

   

  Shared blown saves: 0

   

  Adjusted reliever WHIP (season) (R+IS)/(BB+H+IR):

   

  Stetter: 0% (0+0)/(3+2+4)

  Shouse: 27% (4+3)/(3+7+16)

  Riske: 36% (9+1)/(8+13+7)

  Torres: 22%  (3+3)/(7+13+7)

  McClung: 46% (5+1)/(4+8+1)

  Gagne: 56% (8+1)/(4+10+2)

   

  Series: 4/0 (Riske 1/0; Stetter 3/0)

   

  Scoreless IP (season):

   

  Torres: 12.0

  Mota: 11.3

  Gagne: 7.7

  Riske: 7.7

  Shouse: 6.3

  Stetter: 6.0

  McClung: 5.7

  Turnbow: 3.0

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Brewers Starting Pitching Efficiency

  Posted Apr 26 2008, 11:45 AM by radio silence

  After watching a series of inefficient starts this week, and following a team whose starters have had a problem nibbling all season, I thought that I would take a survey of how our pitchers are performing in terms of efficiency.

  In order to measure efficiency, I am basically taking an approximate measure of 15 NP per IP as a mark of efficiency, for the sake of a standard measure. Obviously we might find 15 to be a problematic number in some cases (i.e., it assumes pitchers will give up about one baserunner per IP, and may or may not effectively account for foul balls, HBP, and other events that drive pitch counts up). However, as a basic measure, I think it will suffice.

  So, first I have collected simple IP, NP, PA, NP/IP and NP/PA for our staff. I have arranged the pitchers in terms of most efficient to least efficient:

  Sheets (28 IP): 384 NP, 101 PA, 13.71 NP/IP; 3.80 NP/PA

  Suppan (31 IP): 463 NP, 125 PA, 14.94 NP/IP; 3.70 NP/PA

  Gallardo (14 IP): 229 NP, 56 PA, 16.36 NP/IP; 4.09 NP/PA

  Bush (22.7 IP): 402 NP; 104 PA, 17.74 NP/IP; 3.87 NP/PA

  Parra (18.3 IP): 354 NP, 88 PA, 19.31 NP/IP; 4.03 NP/PA

  Villanueva (23 IP): 406 NP, 104 PA, 17.65 NP/IP; 3.90 NP/PA

   

  Total (137 IP): 2238 NP, 578 PA, 16.34 NP/IP; 3.87 NP/PA

  Not surprisingly, Sheets is having the most efficient season of our starters, which is probably a result of his ability to command his pitchers better than anyone on our staff. His NP/PA is below the team average level, and he is throwing about 2.5 fewer pitches per IP than the staff average -- which probably explains his comparatively high IP total after 4 starts.

  Suppan is not far behind Sheets -- he is more efficient per PA than Sheets (probably because he strikes out fewer batters and depends upon his defense more), but he has allowed more baserunners per IP, although his NP/IP remains below staff average.

  Bush is an interesting case: he is throwing more pitches per IP than the staff average, even though he is throwing an average number of pitches per PA. This should be consistent with the amount of baserunners that Bush is allowing. The same could be said about Villanueva, although to a somewhat lesser extent.

  Gallardo is throwing more pitches per PA than anyone on the staff, but his ability to record outs right now accounts for his lower NP/IP total. Parra is not faring as well as Gallardo, as he is not only throwing a lot of pitches per PA, but he's also throwing a lot of pitches per IP. This accounts for his baserunners total, and his control problems that he is struggling with.

  So, how do these numbers translate?

  If we take our hypothetical standard of 15 NP/IP, we can create a "virtual IP" category, which basically suggests that for a particular number of pitches, there should be a corresponding IP total. I.e., if a pitcher has 90 NP, the hypothetical standard suggests 6 "virtual IP." If he is at 90 NP with only 5.3 IP recorded, he is inefficient. If he is at 90 NP with 6.3 IP recorded, he is efficient, and better than the standard.

  This standard should be able to help us figure out just how many IP our staff should have...

  Sheets (28 IP): 25.6 virtual IP (+2.4 IP)

  Suppan (31 IP): 30.9 virtual IP (+0.1 IP)

  Gallardo (14 IP): 15.3 virtual IP (-1.3 IP)

  Bush (22.7 IP): 26.8 virtual IP (-4.1 IP)

  Villanueva (23 IP): 27.1 virtual IP (-4.1 IP)

  Parra (18.3 IP): 23.6 virtual IP (-5.3 IP)

   

  Total (137 IP): 149.2 virtual IP (-12.2 IP)

  Not surprisingly, given their efficiency, both Sheets and Suppan have maximized their IP totals, and have combined to pitch 2.5 more IP than their NP total indicates. This is a very good thing; it means that they can go deeper into ballgames without putting as many pitches on their arms.

  Gallardo has been inefficient thus far; his virtual IP total does not look bad because he only has 2 starts, but through those 2 starts he has pitched approximately 4 more outs than necessary.

  Bush, Parra, and Villanueva have had the worst efficiency and the worst luck with their IP totals. The number of pitches they have thrown suggest that each of them have pitched at least 12 more outs than necessary. Parra's number is actually closer to 16 extra outs, as he is already a full 5.3 IP behind his NP total after 4 starts.

  What does this mean for the season?

  Projected over 30 GS...

  Sheets: 30 GS, 210.00 IP; 2880 NP, 757.50 PA

  Suppan: 30 GS, 186.00 IP, 2778 NP, 750 PA

  Gallardo: 30 GS, 210.00 IP, 3435 NP, 840 PA

  Villanueva: 30 GS, 172.50 IP; 3045 NP, 780 PA

  Bush: 30 GS, 170.25 IP; 3015 NP, 780 PA,

  Parra: 30 GS, 137.25 IP; 2655 NP, 660 PA

   And their projected virtual IP...

  Sheets: 30 GS, 210.00 IP; 192.00 virtual IP (+18.0 IP)

  Suppan: 30 GS, 186.00 IP; 185.20 virtual IP (+0.80 IP)

  Gallardo: 30 GS, 210.00 IP, 229.00 virtual IP (-19.0 IP)

  Villanueva: 30 GS, 172.50 IP; 203.00 virtual IP (-30.5 IP)

  Bush: 30 GS, 170.25 IP; 201.00 virtual IP (-30.75 IP)

  Parra: 30 GS, 137.25 IP, 177.00 virtual IP (-39.75 IP)

  With 1 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Adjusted Bullpen Stats for Cards and Phils series

  Posted Apr 25 2008, 02:20 PM by radio silence

  After hanging tough through their early workloads, the over-use finally caught up with the crucial members of the bullpen this week.

  Specifically, we've found our first two shared blown saves, which includes outings where a reliever blows a lead or a tie after another reliever (or relievers) have surrendered runs. This occurred in both Cardinals games, where Turnbow blew the tie in the 9th on Monday after Shouse and Mota blew the tie in the 8th, and Gagne blew the lead in the 9th on Tuesday after Shouse and Riske allowed four runs in the seventh. Turnbow and Gagne alone cannot be blamed for their fortunes in these ballgames, and given the number of runs allowed by the other relievers in these games, we ought to hold several relievers accountable.

  Thus, our shared blown save stat jumps from zero to two in the span of two days.

  Due to a bunch of blown leads and blown ties, our adjusted leads converted % falls from 83% to 78%, which is still a respectable number given the number of tight appearances the bullpen has seen thus far:

  The bullpen has seen 41 adjusted lead opportunities in 22 games, including 14 tie game appearancess and 27 appearances with a lead of 3-or-fewer runs. That breaks down into 14 appearances in tie games, 14 appearances in SVO, and 13 appearances in hold situations. 

  Adjusted Bullpen Stats April 21-24 

  Adjusted leads converted (series 7/11, 64%; season 32/41, 78%)

  Riske 1/2 (hold; one tie opportunity)

  Torres 1/1 (hold)

  Stetter 1/1 (hold)

  Mota 1/1 (tie)

  McClung 1/1 (tie)

  Shouse 1/2 (one hold; one tie opportunity)

  Turnbow 1/2 (one SVO; one tie opportunity)

  Gagne 0/1 (SVO)

   

  Shared blown saves: 2 (Gagne, Shouse, Riske; Turnbow, Shouse, Mota)

   

  Adjusted reliever WHIP (season) (R+IS)/(BB+H+IR):

  Shouse: 27% (4+3)/(3+7+16)

  Riske: 37% (9+1)/(8+13+6)

  Torres: 22%  (3+3)/(7+13+7)

  McClung: 46% (5+1)/(4+8+1)

  Gagne: 56% (8+1)/(4+10+2)

   

  Series: 11/5 (Mota 2/1, Shouse 4/3, Torres 3/1, Riske 1/0, Stetter 1/0)

   

  Scoreless IP (season):

   

  Torres: 12.0

  Mota: 10.3

  Riske: 7.0

  McClung: 5.7

  Shouse: 5.3

  Stetter: 5.0

  Gagne: 4.7

  Turnbow: 3.0

  The offense and the starting pitchers desperately need to give the bullpen a few games off. Can't we have a stretch of 20 games where there are only 10 or 15 appearances needed in ties or with leads of 3-or-fewer runs?

  Unrealistic, I know, but our pen needs it.

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Trends for Rickie Weeks

  Posted Apr 24 2008, 11:51 PM by radio silence

  After a tough roadtrip, Weeks' is waking up at Miller Park:

  Road trip: 39 PA, 5 H/32 AB, 2 HR; 11 K/5 BB; 2 HBP; .156/.308/.344

  Homestand: 19 PA, 4 H/14 AB, 2 2B, 1 3B, 0 HR; 3 K/5 BB; 0 HBP; .286/.474/.571

  Regardless of this jump in production, there are some interesting trends that suggest that even though he is not hitting well overall right now, he is headed in the right direction:

  -20 K in 100 PA (20%) is a better % than his career 330 K in 1447 PA (23%), and his 2007 campaign, which had 116 K in 506 PA (23%).

   

  -His XBH% is stable from 2007, and both his 2007 and 2008 XBH% are better than his career XBH%:

   

  Career: 105 XBH in 300 H (35%)

  2007: 43 XBH in 96 H (45%)

  2008: 7 XBH in 16 H (44%)

   

  -His HR% is up thus far: 3 HR in 16 H puts Weeks around 19% HR, vs. 16 in 96 in 2007 (17%), and 40 in 300 for his career (13%)

   

  -Weeks is maintaining his career walk rate, which is off his 2007 campaign, but better than each of his previous seasons:

   

  Career: 162 BB in 1447 PA (11%)

  2005: 40 BB in 414 PA (9%)

  2006: 30 BB in 413 PA (7%)

  2007: 78 BB in 506 PA (15%)

  2008: 13 BB in 100 PA (13%)

   

  -All that is left to fall into place is the hits: 16% H/PA in 2008 (16/100), Against 19% H/PA in 2007 (96/506), 24% H/PA in 2006 (100/413), and 21% H/PA in 2005 (86/414).

   

  If Weeks even recovers his 2007 hit % in 700 PA in 2008, and maintains everything else, here is his raw projection:

   

  700 PA, 581 AB, 133 H, 25 2B, 8 3B, 25 HR, 140 K/91 BB; 28 HBP; .229/.360/.429

   

  If Weeks can raise his hit % to somewhere between his 2005 and 2006 levels (22%), and everything else remains the same, here is his projection:

   

  700 PA, 581 AB, 154 H, 29 2B, 10 3B, 29 HR, 140 K/91 BB; 28 HBP; .265/.390/.499

  Right now, I think a jump from his current H/PA% to his 2007 level would be enough of a success; but, if Weeks can push the hits up more (6 more hits per 100 PA), everything could come together for a very good season.

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• 4/22/08: Observations at Miller Park

  Posted Apr 23 2008, 12:20 AM by radio silence
   

  I am in the middle of job hunting right now, and it is a very stressful time. So, I promised myself yesterday that if I found a few jobs to apply to on Tuesday, I would treat myself to Tuesday’s game. My added incentive was lower level box seats on sale for $22, so I found some job openings, completed my morning appointments, and headed to the stadium to pick up my will call ticket. 118, Row 20, Seat 12.

   

  1. I have not yet sat this close to the action at Miller Park. While the Cleveland Indians were in town during their snow out games, my friends and I sat down the third base line off the dugout. So, those seats were technically “closer” to the field, these seats today placed my right on top of the action.

   

  Today I really captured just how intense every at bat is. Everyone is so focused on each pitch, and after each pitch, the tension explodes, and there is an unfolding of events: the catcher sliding to smother a wild breaking ball, the batter fighting off a sinker, the umpire interacting with the batter, the pitcher following his pitch. I truly appreciate just how difficult this game is for the major leaguers, and the level at which they are playing the game.

   

  2. Manny Parra needs to throw more strikes. And better strikes. Today he finished yet another non-quality start, although it was not an awful start. His start was plagued by nibbling around the strike zone. This disappointed me, because his stuff is clearly good, and he has a very easy time switching speeds, causing deception, and maintaining different velocity levels. Parra has the potential to be one of those quality middle of the rotation (or higher) pitchers that can get by on deception, while having the luxury of sitting on a mid-90s fastball.

   

  Here is an example of some of his velocity sequences:

   

  90-93 (first through second IP)

  89-91 (fourth through fifth IP)

  73-76 (second through fifth IP)

  83-84 (first through fifth IP)

  81-82 (third through fifth IP)

   

  I basically found Parra to be working comfortably in the upper 80s and lower 90s, and by the third onward he really established his change up (which I assume to be 81-82). I believe he was also throwing a slider effectively (which I assume to be 83-85). The fact is, by the middle of his start, he was working at least two different mid-80s off speed pitches effectively.

   

  However, his trouble started in the second, where he provided Ludwick with a lead off walk, recorded two fly outs, and then surrendered consecutive singles, including and RBI single to pitcher Kyle Lohse (who now has 3 RBI off of Parra). What could have been an efficient inning took his pitch count to 33, and the top of the order then put Parra through a long third inning, in which Parra through 30 pitches, but got a lot of defensive help from Ryan Braun (who threw out Albert Pujols).

   

  Parra then struggled in the fourth with two outs recorded, allowing two baserunners on two suspect defensive plays (one charged an error, the other a single). He finished the inning without allowing a run, but his pitch count was further damaged.

   

  What I like about Parra is his velocity level, and his mechanics. He has a wide variety of pitches to use, and he has the luxury of that hard fastball in his back pocket. He also seems to vary the fastball velocity at some points, notching different fastball velocity levels in most of his innings pitched. I think that if Parra was more aggressive, he would in turn limit his pitch count, and it seems to me that he needs to simply trust his ability to change speeds.

   

  The perfect model for Parra occurred in the fifth inning, where he regularly set up his fastball with a slow curveball. I forget the particular batter, but he was unhittable when he attacked with his change up, and also when he used his slow curve to set up his blazing fastball. 93 is that much faster and harder when it follows a 74 curveball, especially when the fastball that follows the low curve is placed high in the zone.

    

  3. Seth McClung was the perfect model of a Brewers pitcher pitching aggressively today. He was placed into a tie game in the 12^th, to face Ludwick, Glaus, and La Rue. He started the inning by testing each of his breaking pitches, which come in at two different speeds. He then turned to working his fastball around the zone, and although he can get the ball up to the upper 90s and tough triple digits, he began working the fastball at slower speeds, working up to a consistent 96 by game’s end (ironically, the GameDay guns are much more consistent in reading McClung’s fastball at very high velocities from the start of the inning)..

   

  By moving the fastball around, and focusing on placement and throwing strikes, McClung was able to strike out Ludwick and La Rue looking; La Rue’s strike out was an especially sweet inside fastball that touched 96.

   

  Glaus was the only batter to put a ball in play during the inning, and he tried to time McClung’s fastball. His effort did not work, and he dribbled out to McClung, who threw to first to make the out.

   

  McClung’s outing was a model for what Brewers’ pitchers need to do: change location, vary speeds, throw strikes. Change the places the batter can look in the zone for strikes, and by being aggressive, it forces the batter to beat the pitcher, rather than allowing the pitcher to defeat himself.

   

  4. Cardinals fans are very nice people and very knowledgeable fans. I had the pleasure of sitting next to a diehard Cards fan, and was in a little pocket of Cards fans for the game. It was an enjoyable day at Miller Park from that perspective.

  With no comments

  Filed under: Milwaukee Brewers bullpen, Milwaukee Brewers, Seth McClung, St. Louis Cardinals, Manny Parra, Miller Park

  Link this   E-mail This Link