Milwaukee Brewers Blog - The Junkball Blues

2009 Rotation II: Luck Factors

radio silence — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:06:37 GMT

This is a continuation of my survey of the Brewers' pitching rotation. See the earlier installments on Parra and Gallardo here, and on pitching rotations from 1-to-5 here; the survey of NL 100+ IP starters is here.

***

While its usefulness as an offensive measurement might be questionable, BABIP (Batting Average on Balls in Play, (H-HR)/(AB-HR-K+SF), as listed on BR. I don't agree with some of the ways in which it is calculated, but that's another issue) provides a useful tool for analyzing the rate at which a pitchers' balls in play drop for htis, or are converted into outs. The other aspect of this calculation, Defensive Efficiency (listed as ((H + ROE - HR) / (PA - BB - SO - HBP - HR)) on BP, although if you're in a rush Def.Eff. can be approximated by calculating 1-BABIP), measures the defensive aspect of BABIP more extensively, and is a rate at which the balls put into play are converted into outs by a defense.

Both of these measurements, taken for individual pitchers and teams alike, can implicate certain things:

(1) Is the pitcher pitching in front of a good defense? Now, I understand that there is a lot of resistance to defensive stats based on individual aspects of defense, or the individual defensive stats taken as an aggregate for the team, but all I mean to use Def.Eff for here is to simply provide one approximation of whether or not the individual pitchers on the Brewers had good defense behind them, or bad defense -- and it does vary throughout the team.

(2) Is the pitcher lucky? I believe this is a logical conclusion of (1). If one starting pitcher receives better-than-average defensive support from the team, and another starting pitcher receives less-than-average defensive support from the team, we can say that the first pitcher is indeed lucky, for an external circumstance not completely within his control is helping to contribute to his success. Now, we can certainly say that a pitcher can help his defense by working quickly, throwing strikes, etc., but I'm not exactly certain there's a proven correlation between working fast, throwing strikes -- keeping the defense on its toes -- and better defensive support.

So, I compiled a very simple survey: I took the Brewers' team pitching BABIP and the Brewers' team Defensive Efficiency, and compared it to the individual rates and the individual support given to individual pitchers.

Team BABIP: .289

Bush: .238

McClung: .284

Gallardo: .297

Sheets: .299

Sabathia: .301

Villanueva: .302

Suppan: .306

Parra: .333

Team Defensive Effieicncy: .698

Bush: .744

McClung: .710

Sheets: .708

Sabathia: .700

Gallardo: .697

Suppan: .691

Villanueva: .688

Parra: .647

Not taking anything away from Dave Bush, or giving any extra sympathy to Parra, but the "luck spectrum" of the 2008 Brewers' staff found Bush at the apex, and Parra in a much more disadvantaged position.

The other pitchers don't really have terribly alarming defensive support or a terribly alarming rate of batted balls dropping for hits. Maybe McClung is the only other pitcher we might worry about having better-than-average defensive support in a manner that distorted his performance....but more on that below.

So, what does this tell us? I took our pitchers currently (and likely) under contract for 2009, and put together their "luck factors" for 2008, and listed them against their H/9 IP. I have provided career H/9 IP, as well as the luck factors and H/9 IP for three other seasons (2005-2007). I'm not sure any of this proves anything, I just found it really, really interesting to see how much H/9 IP can fluctuate from year to year, and how those increases and decreases can be tied to performance, and especially hits allowed.

You can read this chart the following way:

Year (Team, ERA+, H/9 IP): Ind. BABIP / Team BABIP; Ind. Def.Eff./Team Def.Eff

And here it is: our 2009 Brewers' "luck factors":

Bush’s Luck Context: (9.03 H/9 IP career)
2008 (Mil; 104 ERA+; 7.93 H/9 IP): .238/.289 Team; .744/.698 Team

2007 (Mil; 88 ERA+; 10.48 H/9 IP): .323/.312 Team; .676/.677 Team

2006 (Mil; 103 ERA+; 8.61 H/9 IP): .286/.302 Team; .711/.687 Team

2005 (Tor; 99 ERA+; 9.38 H/9 IP): .280/.288 Team; .718/.701 Team

Suppan’s Luck Context: (9.92 H/9 IP career)

2008 (Mil; 87 ERA+, 10.49 H/9 IP): .306/.289 Team; .691/.698 Team

2007 (Mil; 97 ERA+; 10.58 H/9 IP): .324/.312 Team; .671/.677 Team

2006 (StL; 108 ERA+, 9.81 H/9 IP): .298/.294 Team; .701/.697 Team

2005 (StL; 119 ERA+, 9.54 H.9 IP): .296/.286 Team; .702/.704 Team

McClung’s Luck Context: (8.87 H/9 IP career)

2008 (Mil; 108 ERA+; 7.95 H/9 IP): .284/.289 Team; .710/.698 Team

2007 (Mil; 120 ERA+; 8.25 H/9 IP): .324/.312 Team; .667/.677 Team

2006 (TB; 73 ERA+; 10.49 H/9 IP): .308/.315 Team; .684/.672 Team

2005 (TB; 66 ERA+; 8.73 H/9 IP): .270/.305 Team; .726/.684 Team

Parra’s Luck Context: (9.64 H/9 IP)

2008 (Mil; 99 ERA+; 9.81 H/9 IP): .333/.289 Team; .647/.698 Team

2007 (Mil; 119 ERA+; 8.56 H.9 IP): .324/312 Team; .662/.677 Team

Villanueva’s Luck Context (8.34 H/9 IP)

2008 (Mil; 107 ERA+; 9.31 H/9 IP): .302/.289 Team; .688/.698 Team

2007 (Mil; 114 ERA+; 7.95 H/9 IP): .271/.312 Team; .728/.677 Team

Gallardo’s Luck Context: (8.38 H/9 IP)

2008 (Mil; 231 ERA+; 8.40 H/9 IP): .297/.289 Team; .697/.698 Team

2007 (Mil; 122 ERA+; 8.25 H/9 IP): .303/.312 Team; .695/.677 Team

Here are some really interesting things this chart exposes:

(1) From 2007-2008 the defense converted balls-in-play into outs more frequently behind Suppan in 2008, but yet Suppan's performance still dropped (97 ERA+ to 87 ERA+).That's because Suppan allowed one of his worst career HR totals in 2008, and the defense cannot convert balls in the bleachers into outs....Coupled with his rather alarming increase in walks, compared with any number of his previous seasons (just eyeballing, this was probably his worst walk rate since approx. 1996 or 2000). Of course, walks will also not be counted in defensive efficiency, because a walk cannot be converted into an out by the defense.

(2) Dave Bush is one lucky,.,well, you know. In almost the same number of IP as 2007, in 2008 he allowed almost the same number of walks, almost the same number of HR, but of course, his hits total dropped by 54! This is even more remarkable considering that he struck out 30 fewer batters, meaning that more balls were put in play in front of the defense. Now, I am not terribly worried about what this does for Bush's 2009 outlook, as he is showing other signs, on his own, of putting it together with his approach, but damn! He was L-U-C-K-Y in 2008! The one thing I'd look for to offset those factors in 2009 is not simply to watch the hits column, but keep an eye on his HR column and his K/BB. If he can allow slightly fewer HR, and increase that K total again, while keeping his walk total low, he won't get completely slaughtered by his tumble back to average defensive support.

(3) Parra was one poor, unlucky case in 2008. That defensive support is so low, you have to wonder if the Brewers actually played with 8 guys behind our little lefty. Now, other than the fact that every now and then you hear a player talk about how much they love fielding for Sheets because he fires the ball back in there so quickly and never walks anyone, I don't truly believe we have any reason to think that the defense is particularly opposed to working behind Parra, a slow worker. And it's not all Parra's fault, but frankly, the kid should be walking fewer, and he also showed a penchant for quickly starting an inning, and then coming apart once one guy reached base. If Parra throws more strikes, increases that K/BB, he will make fewer problems for himself when that defense does fail him -- instead of that error granting a run and the third baserunner of the inning with two outs (probably following two walks), that error will go relatively unnoticed. But when you're walking guys and not throwing strikes, those errors are huge.

With these factors corrected in 2009, and new luck factors emerging, I foresee reason to believe that Parra's overall performance will improve with better support, and we might see Bush's performance drop slightly. Suppan is difficult to project because so much of his problems in 2008 were his own doing, and cannot be placed on the defense.

But one thing is certain: a portion of the fate of the 2009 rotation will hinge upon the defensive support....and for that, we can only wait to see how the cards fall next year.

2009 Rotation I: Yovani Gallardo and Manny Parra

radio silence — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:46:14 GMT

This is a continuation of my current project, which is to quantify the extent to which the Brewers' 2009 rotation core is average, below average, above average, without Sheets or Sabathia.

Preliminary links: 2008 survey of 100+ IP NL starters; Analysis of rotation levels from 1-5 and Brewers' rotation without Sheets and Sabathia.

I am more and more interested in the ways in which our thinking about starting pitchers affects our understanding of the strengthes and shortcomings of a Bush, Gallardo, Parra, Suppan McClung, Villanueva rotation. That's not to say right off the bat that the Brewers' rotation is complete as is, but the result might be to seriously consider the extent to which the Crew needs to spend a ton of $$$ on a top rotation pitcher, or whether those $$$ would be better spent on rotation depth.

***

Until any movement or signings, we can analyze the players currently under contract control. My first project is Gallardo and Parra, because they present excellent changes and endless possibilities for analysis. It's damn near impossible to project baseball production in the first place, but it's even more difficult with young players that have not fully developed their skills, pitched multiple seasons, or set of the parameters of their performance levels (i.e., what's a good year, what's an average year, what's their worst level, etc.).

So, more than anything, with Gallardo and Parra I asked two questions:

(a) what would certain types of regressions or improvements look like?

and

(b) how much of an impact can we expect IP development to be?

I believe that for young pitchers that are still developing and have yet to pitch 90-120 starts in the majors, (b) is probably more important than (a), if only because workload adjustments in earlier years, while adjusting and developing to the majors, seem more likely to affect production.

This is only an intuition and is not a fact, but it is an intuition I have nonetheless, and would like to scrutinize it.

So, with that, let's look at Gallardo:

Gallardo (23): 24 G, 21 GS, 134.3 IP, 125 H, 53 R, 121 K/45 BB; 15 quality starts; 3.55 runs average, 5.60 IP/G

Raw Average: 34 G, 30 GS, 190.3 IP, 177 H, 75 R, 171 K/64 BB; 21 quality starts; 3.55 runs average, 5.60 IP/G

10% increase: 34 G, 30 GS, 209.3 IP, 176 H, 74 R, 206 K/63 BB; 23 quality starts; 3.18 runs average, 6.16 IP/G

20% decrease: 34 G, 30 GS, 152.3 IP, 169 H, 72 R, 110 K/61 BB; 17 quality starts; 4.25 runs average, 4.48 IP/G

IP Progression:

2004: 26 IP (R, A)

2005: 121.3 IP (A)

2006: 155 IP (A+, AA) (+.278)

2007: 77.7 IP (AAA); 110.3 IP (MLB) (+.213)

2008: 15.7 IP (AAA); 24 IP (MLB) (-.789)
Ideal 2008: 218.3 IP (MLB) (+.161)
Ideal 2009: 244.3 IP (MLB) (+.119)

Gallardo's career opening probably could not have gone any better, and then a series of freak injuries derailed him for an entire year. Although Gallardo had worked up three seasons worth of strong IP totals, from 120, to 155, to 188, the sheer lack of any regular IP and any regular routine in 2008 present huge sets of question marks for his spot in the 2009 rotation.

While Gallardo's production levels are strong -- his averages rest him in the approximate range of a strong top rotation starter, even if he is short of an ace or elite producer -- his IP development dropped at least 148 IP off course, and possibly more than 175 IP off course. The 175 IP number is based around an approximate estimate of Gallardo's 2008 ideal IP total using the descending percentage of IP increases from 2006-2007.

The good news:

-Gallardo is 23 and well within the service requirements for another option. A trip to the minors is neither career-altering nor detrimental to his development, and we're not talking about cheating a guy out of a polished season during his prime. Further development is an option for Gallardo and the Brewers should it be necessary..

-Gallardo is closer to a 3.20 runs average than a 4.20 runs average

-Gallardo is closer to a 1.15 WHIP than a 1.50 WHIP.

-Gallardo is closer to 20 quality starts than 15 quality starts.

What this means is not exactly clear because there is no good way to project a production level for Gallardo in 2009 (what are the bets that the injury ruined his stamina to the point that he spends 2009 recovering rather than producing, and drops below league average? More bizarre things have happened to young pitchers -- like two non-consecutiive, unrelated knee injuries in the same season occurring to a 22-year old developing top rotation pitcher....). However, these are basic parameters for certain trends should Gallardo pitch the entire 2009 season, with one trend representing a noted but rather modest improvement, the other representing a rather significant regression.

Parra (26): 41 G, 31 GS, 192.3 IP, 206 H, 104 R, 173 K/87 BB; 11 quality starts; 4.87 runs average, 4.69 IP/G

Raw Average: 34 G, 26 GS, 159.7 IP, 171 H, 86 R, 144 K/72 BB; 9 quality starts; 4.87 runs average, 4.69 IP/G

20% increase: 34 G, 26 GS, 190.7 IP, 164 H, 83 R, 205 K/68 BB; 11 quality starts; 3.92 runs average, 5.61 IP/G

10% decrease: 34 G, 26 GS, 144.3 IP, 184 H, 85 R, 117 K/71 BB; 8 quality starts; 5.30 runs average, 4.25 IP/G

IP Progression:

2002: 50 IP (R)

2003: 139 IP (A)

2004: 73 IP (A+, AA) (-.475)

2005: 91 IP (AA) (+.247)

2006: 86 IP (A+, AA) (-.055)

2007: 106.7 IP (AA, AAA), 26.3 IP (MLB) (+.547)

2008: 166 IP (MLB) (+.248)

My concerns about Parra have completely turned in the opposite direction since I thought about the results of this survey. Initially, I seemed convinced of Parra's talent and production level and concerned with his IP development after a sketchy injury history. Now I am much more concerned about Parra's production than his IP development.

Shutting down Parra might have been Sveum's best and longest-lasting strategy, and I'm being dead serious. The only other result of his tenure that readily beats the potential long-term impact of shutting down a tired Parra is the potential future financial impact of making the playoffs. Given that Sveum managed to (a) make the playoffs while (b) shutting Parra down leads me to re-analyze my own position about Sveum and what he accomplished in two brief weeks.

Needless to say, after a necessarily large IP increase in 2007 after years of injurt rehab, Parra did not necessarily have the stamina to finish strong during another IP increase in 2008, but the fact that the Brewers cut him out when he was tiring shows a surprising amount of foresight in the midst of a pennant race -- thankfully that fatigue was accompanied by ineffectiveness, so even if Parra wasn't truly tired and didn't truly need to be rested, his ineffectiveness played the de facto role of forcing the Brewers to address their (previously lacking) plan for limiting Parra's workload.

Now to the performance. Parra will not realize his potential if he does not pitch aggressively, stop nibbling, and rely on that power fastball. I am not arguing that Parra has bad stuff; for anyone that has not watched Parra up close, I highly recommend buying a ticket right behind home plate for one of his starts. I did so during a mid-afternoon discount game against the Cardinals, and was blown away by the strength and movement of his stuff when he's right -- it's his control and his approach that are constantly and coming and goind, and unfortunately no matter how powerful your stuff is or how much your stuff moves, if you do not use proper or appropriate pitch sequencing or pitch aggressively, all of that is a waste. For most of the season I felt this was an issue with Kendall. I get that he wants these young pitchers to learn, but there's something to be said in favor of Parra raring back and blowing that fastball by batters, rather than focusing on nibbling around the plate with his blurry set of breaking pitches.

This might actually be a point against Parra -- he huge suitcase of off-speed pitches rivals that of Dave Bush and Jeff Suppan, and really, it's not clear that Parra needs to be more than a 3-pitch pitcher. And I mean that as a compliment. I am such a firm believer in Parra's stuff that I think he could get by with an aggressive rotation of fastballs and a trimmed down set of breaking pitches.

Thus, I flipped around the scenario for Parra from that of Gallardo, as their scenarios in general seem to be flipped: afterall, whereas Gallardo pitched entirely too few innings in 2008, there were serious questions until mid-September about how many innings would be too many for Parra. And here's the issue: if we work with a rather significant improvement, Parra jumps flat into the solid range of a top rotation pitcher. But a marked but rather modest regression lowers his production to a rather unsatisfactory level.

Which leads me to be concerned more with Parra's production and Gallardo's innings workload in 2009. But the recap need not be negative, even if we could raise 100,001 questions and concerns about our young pitching combination. Let's be positive: Gallardo's strong riding fastball and backwards-pitching set up is simply stunning, and his ability to pitch, his composure, and his overall development appear years beyond his age. Parra's power stuff supplies the Brewers with a rather rare and coveted asset -- a left-handed pitcher with a strong arm.

The upside for this duo could easily carry the Brewers to the playoffs in 2009 and beyond. The downsides and question marks need to be thoroughly analyzed because I firmly believe that it will be issues of workload, the progression of innings, and the development of pitch selection / pitching approaches that help to make two strong, complementary seasons from these two pitchers possible in 2009.

So what do we expect?

NL SP with 100+ IP ranked by rotation spot

radio silence — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:20:00 GMT

Edit: Here is the article to which this post is a companion.

Lately I have been immersed in the question of our rotation in 2009, because I do not thing we are in bad shape whatsoever, but I am at a loss to explain why.

Part of my argument I am developing depends upon breaking down the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 pitching rotation scheme. The best way I knew how to do that at first is to rank the starting pitchers in the NL with 100+ IP in their requisite groups, in order to compare them.

Here's what I did:

(1) I sorted pitchers at BP according to "runs prevented," a raw stat that is component VORP for pitchers, determining the value of pitchers over a certain frame of time (IP) based around the extent to which said pitcher prevents runs against the league average. The second sorting criteria was "100 IP," the third, "NL."

(2) I simply filled in GS, G, IP, and R totals. Those should be easy and intuitive to read. I simply used those stats to compile group averages, and I grouped each SP level at 16, under the hypothetical argument that every rotation would have an even distribution of #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 starters. Obviously that is false, but I was having trouble thinking of a good arbitrary cut off, and did not want to over-load the survey with VORP, runs revented, or some statistical cut off. So I went general and broad.

Obviously we will find there to be gray area and overlapping production in some cases, but according to this method, there are fairly rigid results...

I should have more on this tomorrow....

BTW, if you're uninterested in the theoretical purpose of this work, that's perfectly fine. This should also serve as a good reference for judging teams and free agents going into 2009.

ENJOY!

1. Lincecum, SF (72.5 VORP): 34 G, 33 GS,            227 IP, 72 R

2. Santana, NYM (73.4 VORP): 34 GS,                    234.3 IP, 74 R

3. Sabathia, Mil (52.2 VORP): 17 GS,                       130.7 IP, 31 R

4. Dempster, ChC (57.5 VORP): 33 GS,                   206.7 IP, 75 R

5. Peavy, SD (51.5 VORP): 27 GS,                           173.7 IP, 57 R

6. Hamels, Phi (56.3 VORP): 33 GS,                         227.3 IP, 89 R

7. Sheets, Mil (52.4 VORP): 31 GS,                          198.3 IP, 74 R

8. Billingsley, LAD (51.6 VORP): 35 G, 32 GS,       200.7 IP, 76 R

9. Haren, Ari (53.2 VORP): 33 GS,                           216 IP, 86 R

10. Lowe, LAD (49.7 VORP): 34 GS,                       211 IP, 84 R

11. Webb, Ari (50.8 VORP): 34 GS,                          226.7 IP, 95 R

12. Volquez, Cin (44.3 VORP): 33 G, 32 GS,           196 IP, 82 R

13. Hudson, Atl (37.0 VORP): 23 G, 22 GS,            142 IP, 53 R

14. Nolasco, Fla (44.7 VORP): 34 G, 32 GS,            212.3 IP, 88 R

15. Oswalt, Hou (44.1 VORP): 32 GS,                      208.7 IP, 89 R

16. Maholm, Pit (42.7 VORP): 31 GS,                       206.3 IP, 89 R

First Starters: 498 G, 490 GS                                     3217.7 IP, 1214 R

First starters: 31.1 G, 3.40 runs average, 6.46 IP/G (37.0 to 73.4 VORP range)

17. Wainwright, StL (33.2 VORP): 20 GS,               132 IP, 51 R

18. Cain, SF (43.2 VORP): 34 GS,                            217.7 IP, 95 R

19. Moyer, Phi (40.3 VORP): 33 GS,                         196.3 IP, 85 R

20. Pelfrey, NYM (39.6 VORP): 32 GS,                   200.7 IP, 86 R

21. Lohse, StL (39.2 VORP): 33 GS,                         200 IP, 88 R

22. Wellemeyer, StL (37.3 VORP): 32 GS,               191.7 IP, 84 R

23. Zambrano, ChC (35.7 VORP): 30 GS,                 188.7 IP, 85 R

24. Cook, Col (36.5 VORP): 32 GS,                          211.3 IP, 102 R

25. Lilly, ChC (35.3 VORP): 34 GS,                                     204.7 IP, 96 R

26. Jurrjens, Atl (33.0 VORP): 31 GS,                       188.3 IP, 87 R

27. Kuroda, LAD (31.2 VORP): 31 GS,                    183.3 IP, 85 R

28. Jimenez, Col (32.7 VORP): 34 GS,                      198.7 IP, 97 R

29. Campillo, Atl (25.8 VORP): 39 G, 25 GS,           158.7 IP, 74 R

30. W. Rodroguez, Hou (22.4 VORP): 25 GS,          137.3 IP, 65 R

31. Young, SD (17.6 VORP): 18 GS,                        102.3 IP, 46 R

32. R. Johnson, Ari (27.2 VORP): 30 GS,                 184 IP, 92 R

Second Starters: 488 G, 474 GS                                 2895.7 IP, 1318 R

Second starters: 30.5 G, 4.10 runs average, 5.93 IP/G (17.6 to 43.2 VORP)

33. Bush, Mil (26.5 VORP): 31 G, 29 GS,                 185 IP, 92 R

34. Kershaw, LAD (17.4 VORP): 22 G, 21 GS,        107.7 IP, 51 R

35. Lannan, Was (25.1 VORP): 31 GS,                     182 IP, 89 R

36. Looper, StL (25.7 VORP): 33 GS,                       199 IP, 101 R

37. Maine, NYM (18.6 VORP): 25 GS,                     140 IP, 70 R

38. D. Davis, Ari (19.3 VORP): 26 GS,                     146 IP, 76 R

39. Marquis, ChC (20.8 VORP): 29 G, 28 GS,          167 IP, 87 R

40. Moehler, Hou (16.8 VORP): 31 G, 26 GS,          150 IP, 79 R

41. Ol. Perez, NYM (21.0 VORP): 34 GS,                194 IP, 100 R

42. Maddux, SD (15.0 VORP): 26 GS,                     153.3 IP, 80 R

43. Myers, Phi (19.3 VORP): 30 GS,                         190 IP, 103 R

44. Parra, Mil (15.0 VORP): 32 G, 29 GS,                 166 IP, 91 R

45. Baek, SD (7.7 VORP): 22 G, 20 GS,                   111 IP, 60 R

46. Olsen, Fla (18.0 VORP): 33 GS,                          201.7 IP, 106 R

47. de la Rosa, Col (9.2 VORP): 28 G, 23 GS,          130 IP, 77 R

48. Harang, Cin (15.5 VORP): 30 G, 29 GS,                         184.3 IP, 104 R

Third Starters: 463 G, 433 GS                                    2607 IP, 1366 R

Third starters: 28.9 G, 4.72 runs average, 5.63 IP/G (7.7 to 26.5 VORP range)

49. Francis, Col (10.6 VORP): 24 GS,                       143.7 IP, 84 R

50. Od. Perez, Was (12.0 VORP): 30 GS,                 159.7 IP, 87 R

51. J. Sanchez, SF (11.1 VORP): 29 GS,                   158 IP, 90 R

52. Cueto, Cin (11.5 VORP): 31 GS,                                     174 IP, 101 R

53. Wolf, SD (4.7 VORP): 21 GS,                             119.7 IP, 69 R

54. Arroyo, Cin (13.1 VORP): 34 GS,                       200 IP, 116 R

55. Pineiro, StL (5.7 VORP): 26 G, 25 GS,               148.7 IP, 89 R

56. Eaton. Phi (-1.9 VORP): 21 6, 19 GS,                 107 IP, 71 R

57. Duke, Pit (7.4 VORP): 31 GS,                             185 IP, 111 R

58. P. Martinez, NYM (-2.0 VORP): 20 GS,                         109 IP, 70 R

59. Suppan, Mil (3.6 VORP): 31 GS,                         177 IP, 110 R

60. Owings, Ari (-5.8 VORP): 22 G, 18 GS,                         104.7 IP, 73 R

61. Redding, Was (3.1 VORP): 33 GS,                     182 IP, 110 R

62. Reyes, Atl (-5.5 VORP); 23 G, 22 GS,                113 IP, 77 R

63. Hendrickson, Fla (-4.3 VORP): 36 G, 19 GS,      133.7 IP, 87 R

64. Kendrick, Phi (-2.9 VORP): 31 G, 30 GS,           155.7 IP, 103 R

Fourth Starters: 465 G, 440 GS                                  2370.7 IP, 1448 R

Fourth starters: 29.1 G, 5.50 runs average, 5.10 IP/G (-5.8 to 13.1 VORP range)

65. McClung, Mil (19.9 VORP): 37 G, 12 GS,          105.3 IP, 47 R

66. Villanueva, Mil (15.7 VORP): 47 G, 9 GS,          108.3 IP, 53 R

67. Sampson, Hou (14.6 VORP): 54 G, 11 GS,         117.3 IP, 60 R

68. Snell, Pit (-1.9 VORP): 31 GS,                             164.3 IP, 107 R

69. Zito, SF (-0.9 VORP): 32 GS,                              180 IP, 115 R

70. Bergmann, Was (-6.3 VORP): 30 G, 22 GS,        139.7 IP, 94 R

71. Correia, SF (-9.9 VORP): 25 G, 19 GS,               110 IP, 80 R

72. Gorzelanny, Pit (-11.4 VORP): 21 GS,                105.3 IP, 79 R

73. A. Miller, Fla (-12.4 VORP): 29 G, 20 GS,          107.3 IP, 78 R

74. Backe, Hou (-7.9 VORP): 31 GS,                        166.7 IP, 114 R

Fifth starters/swingmen: 337 G, 208 GS                    1304.3 IP, 827 R

Fifth starters/swingmen: 33.7 G, 5.71 runs average, 3.87 IP/G (-12.4 to 19.9 VORP range)

One Game

radio silence — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:13:23 GMT

What is the value of one baseball game? I was lucky enough to have attended Game Four yesterday, my first playoff game ever, and I had a blast. But it hasn't hit me yet, that they lost, that the Brewers' season is over. And that's what's bizarre about elimination games -- the entire season is played with continual games, a repetition of skill and routine alike, and no matter the outcome of today's game, there is always tomorrow's game. You only have as much momentum as the next day's starting pitcher, they say. One game is merely one game in baseball -- which is one of the features that makes the game so enjoyable.

I am having trouble getting my mind around the fact that there will not be a Brewers baseball game for approximately six months.

As for the Brewers, I couldn't be more pleased with the way they put things together with duct tape at the end of the season, entering the postseason in a thrilling manner, as if playing as the hottest team in baseball for three months was not enough. This season was so thoroughly entertaining, from a club that managed to give us monumental slumps and one of the best hot streaks I've ever seen, lasting from that series at Pittsburgh in May through that series at Pittsburgh in August.

Whereas last year's story was the slugging offense, this year's story was the above average pitching staff, and their ability to carry the team regardless of offensive output for most of the season. Sure, C.C. is the main story due to his incredible run, but he was here for half of a season. The stories of Ben Sheets, Dave Bush, Seth McClung, and Manny Parra are equally as compelling, explaining the trends and developments of our rotation throughout the season.

Ben Sheets started the season strong, and pitched well even though the Sabathia trade, although a stretch of downright putrid run support, bullpen support, and defensive support plagued him. It's difficult to win baseball games when your team continually scores 3 or fewer runs, and that's the story of Sheets since July 9: 14 GS, 81.3 IP, 37 R, 7 quality starts; 4.10 runs average, 5.81 IP/GS. His two short starts in September weigh down a solid stretch during which Sheets pitched 7 quality starts in 12 starts, but didn't receive the support he needed to help the Brewers win.

After his rough start, Dave Bush pitched one fine season from May 27 and forward: 22 G, 21 GS, 138.3 IP, 113 H, 56 R, 85 K/30 BB; 13 quality starts (61.9%); 3.64 runs average, 6.29 IP/G

Manny Parra neither finished nor started his season with any type of quality results, but from May 20, a scoreless outing at Pittsburgh, through the end of August, he was one of the crucial pitchers to step up and lead this team to a hot stretch. 19 G, 18 GS, 109.3 IP, 45 R, 9 quality starts; 3.71 runs average, 5.75 IP/GS.

And of course, there is McClung's stretch as a spot starter from May 24-July 21: 11 GS, 60.3 IP, 29 R, 5 quality starts (45.5%); 4.33 runs average, 5.48 IP/GS.

The next time someone raves to you about how Sabathia took this team to the playoffs, be sure to mention Ben Sheets, Dave Bush, Manny Parra, and Seth McClung.

Thank you for the excellent season, Brewers! It couldn't have been more entertaining, intriguing, exciting...

The Amazing Dave Bush

radio silence — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:11:00 GMT

Forget about his April and May...rough start to the season, his approach wasn't working, and suddenly, June came. Arriving with a surprise call back to the majors, after being optioned down to AAA, Dave Bush provided the rotation with one of the desperate stopgaps it needed, and assisted the team's transformation into a contender from something of a sputtering question mark, struggling through a rough early season.

Dave Bush gets my vote for the 2008 Unsung Hero of the Milwaukee Brewers.

His June success started off with a promising May 27 start against Atlanta at Miller Park. Having allowed five or more runs in 5 of 8 starts to that point, Bush allowed 2 runs over 7 against the Braves, and followed suit against the Astros, helping to complete the Brewers' sparkplug homestand. Although Bush had some rough patches in June, he began stringing together more quality starts in between his rough starts, and before anyone knew it, he pitched 5 quality starts in his 11 starts from May 27 through July 31.

Then came August, the best stretch of his career: 4-0, 5 GS, 5 quality starts, 34 IP, and a 2.12 ERA, leading the team through an August surge where most of the rotation came together and pitched very well.

September saw Bush working as one of the only Brewers starters pitching well behind the sparkling C.C. Sabathia, although Bush's quality starts were subject to questionable bullpen work in September, as was his gutsy 5 IP, 2 R performance on short rest at Wrigley Field. He stepped up when the rotation as a whole was falling apart, due to injury and ineffectiveness, and that provides the cap to an excellent stretch of 21 starts for the right-hander.

Dave Bush since May 27: 22 G, 21 GS, 138.3 IP, 113 H, 56 R, 85 K/30 BB; 13 quality starts (61.9%); 3.64 runs average, 6.29 IP/G

Congratulations on a strong season, Dave, and keep up the good work. There couldn't be a more fitting starter on this club to step up when the team needs a solid start, and someone to keep them in the game. I hope that today you become a well-praised hero for guiding the team to their first home playoff win in 26 years, a game that is needed to keep the Brewers' playoff run alive.

Go Brewers!