Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Roundtable: Which Draft Pick Is Most Likely To Bust?

Lohse, Arbitration & Great Expectations

We all know Kyle got the better end of arbitration, as he was awarded $3.95 million to play in 2006.  Is it too much?

Minnesota had offered Lohse $3.4 million in arbitration.  Had you asked me at the time what I thought, I'd have told you one of two things:  Kyle Lohse isn't worth $3.4 million or it doesn't matter we'll be trading him anyway.  Now I'm thinking that getting Lohse for less than $4 million suits me just fine.

American League #4 Starters by salary

Name                Salary  Age
Carl Pavano     $9,000,000   29
Jose Contreras  $8,500,000   33
Jarrod Washburn $6,550,000   30
C.C. Sabathia   $5,250,000   24
David Wells     $4,075,000   42
Gil Meche       $2,535,000   26
Kyle Lohse      $2,400,000   26
Ryan Drese        $550,000   29
Erik Bedard       $330,000   26
Doug Waechter     $330,000U  24
David Bush        $327,000   25
D.J. Carrasco     $320,500U  28
Jeremy Bonderman  $320,500   22
Kirk Saarloos     $320,000E  26

U=2005 salary unavailable; 2004 salary listed
E=No salary information available; Estimate

These are your American League #4 starters in 2005 based on statistical performance.  I'll follow this table with statistical and objective analysis, but I wanted to introduce you to the list first.  Looking through the list, there aren't a whole lot of appealing options.  Pavano is too expensive; Wells is too old; Carrasco is lucky to be around; Drese is running out of chances; Sabathia's throwing motion will shorten his career and is still pissed about LeCroy beating him to the post-game buffet.

Out of the 14 men listed, there are only three I like.  One is Jarrod Washburn, but he's too expensive.  There's no way the Twins are dishing out over $6 million for a fourth starter.  Two is Jeremy Bonderman, but he's had a rought start in Detroit and may still be a year out from living up to his potential.  Three is Kyle Lohse.

When you're a crazy-nuts fan, like most of us are, it's hard to be as close and familiar with a team as we can be and still not judge players subjectively.  If we were to subjectively review Kyle Lohse, we're basing our judgements against not only a strong Minnesota pitching staff but also against our expectations for Lohse himself.  That will bring up a laundry list of criticisms:  there seems to be no poise on the mound; potential we saw in 2001 and 2002 has turned into little growth or maturity; superb stuff that hasn't been harnassed; unmet expectations; the ability to be amazingly inconsistant.  Everyone has their own grocery list, and I know I've had mine.

Below is the same list, this time with select statistics to give you a broad view of each pitcher's performance in 2005.

American League #4 Starters by 2005 Statistics

Name               IP   ERA   K/9   WHIP   OPS
C. Pavano       100.0  4.77  5.04   1.47  .864
J. Contreras    205.2  3.61  6.77   1.23  .678
J. Washburn     177.1  3.20  4.77   1.33  .749
C. Sabathia     197.2  4.03  7.37   1.26  .682
D. Wells        184.0  4.45  5.23   1.31  .765
G. Meche        143.1  5.09  5.21   1.57  .788
K. Lohse        179.2  4.18  4.33   1.43  .798
R. Drese        129.1  5.78  3.20   1.61  .815
E. Bedard       142.2  4.00  7.94   1.38  .694
D. Waechter     157.0  5.62  4.99   1.46  .843
D. Bush         136.1  4.49  4.95   1.25  .780
D. Carrasco     115.2  4.79  3.85   1.57  .786
J. Bonderman    189.0  4.57  6.91   1.35  .761
K. Saarloos     160.2  4.17  2.99   1.40  .736
AVERAGE         158.2  4.48  5.25   1.40  .767

In 2005, if you look at this list and consider them all #4 starters, the mean average salary was just a hair under $3,000,000.  If this is correct, then last year the Twins had a #4 starter at $600,000 below market value.  In positive return you received 20 extra innings of work, an ERA 0.40 lower than average, and WHIP is roughly a push.  On the downside Kyle's strikeout numbers are a little low and his OPS is 30 points above the mean.

A lot of the dilemma in giving Lohse a break is that he came on as a youngster in 2001 at the age of 22.  In 2002 he put together a decent year, and it set up the fan base to believe they had a brash, young right-hander who could become a number two starter in time.  But did he ever truly show that potential, or were our expectations just based on the flawed logic that he was a young gun at The Show?  Kyle's minor league numbers aren't bad, but they didn't necessarily fortell the most promise either.

Did Kyle Lohse deserve to win arbitration?

Basically, arbitration breaks down like this.  If you've had at least 3 years, no more than 6 years experience, and do not have a contract the following season, you are eligible for arbitration.  If you're in the top third of players at your position statistically, you're also eligible.  Both sides determine figures they deem fair, and go before 3 arbiters.  Organizations can offer no lower than 80% of the player's salary the previous year and no lower than 70% of the salary two years prior.

Relevant Salary

Year       Salary
2004     $395,000
2005   $2,400,000
2006   $3,950,000

Over the past two seasons, Lohse has gone to arbitration twice and has won twice.  In each case the Twins were offering him a raise, but the two sides couldn't agree on a number.  In 2005 each side couldn't close a $250,000 gap, and in the end Kyle got a $2 million dollar raise instead of a $1.75 million dollar raise.  This season he'll get a $1.5 million dollar raise instead of a $1 million dollar raise.  This tells me that while Minnesota recognizes the significance of Lohse's role in the rotation, they obviously didn't think he did as well as Kyle and his agent thought he did.

There's a reasonable man inside me somewhere insisting that paying Kyle $3.4 million would have been more than enough, but mostly that's the voice of a guy who thinks all athletes are overpaid.  Then there's the baseball man inside me who, the more he looks into it, thinks that paying $3.95 million for Lohse is very fair.  All things considered he did a very average job as the 4th man out of the rotation last season, and asking for what will be roughly $300-400K above average for a #4 starter in 2006 (with the abilities of Kyle Lohse) makes perfect sense.

He's 18-26 the past two seasons.  His innings pitched have declined the past two seasons.  Strikeout rates have dipped as well.  But at the back end of the rotation, for the talent you're getting and the numbers you're getting, you can't go much more inexpensive.  If you want better numbers, you'd have to overpay to get them. C.C. Sabathia's numbers were better across the board, but the Twins couldn't afford that salary.  Erik Bedard performed on the cheap, but he's the diamond in the rough from 2005.

Does Kyle Lohse deserve to win his second consecutive arbitration?  I believe he does.  He'll throw 180 innings, he'll have an ERA in the lower 4's, and there will be plenty of quality starts to bring on an air of "strokey beards" in all of us.  He's being paid more, and I expect him to improve accordingly.  Why can't we see this Kyle every game? we'll ask while scratching our chins.  There won't be any answers, but in that moment we'll be happy.

If Luis Rivas was the "Twin Most Likely To Get Ripped On" of 2005, who will get the nod in 2006?

Tony Batista      - 56 %  
Torii Hunter      -  2 %  
Jesse Crain       -  0 %  
Justin Morneau    -  8 %  
Michael Cuddyer   - 10 %  
Shannon Stewart   -  6 %  
Jason Bartlett    -  1 %  
Kyle Lohse        - 14 %  

I posted this poll a few weeks ago, and Lohse came in second.  In the heat of the moment, there's no doubt I'll be up in the mix.  But right now, while I can still be removed from the game, I'm objective.  Lohse ain't so bad.

[EDIT: If you do want to go more inexpensive, then you're probably forcing Liriano into the rotation early. This post is quite officially long enough, but it's an interesting question. Would you be willing to possibly rush Liriano to save the extra money? Lots of upside, lots to lose. IF he's put into the rotation and handles himself fine, do you get average numbers in 2006?]

Comment 35 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Not surprised
Thanks for clarifying what I've suspected for a while - while Lohse is no Santana, he's not all that bad at the job he's given.  Sure, if we had the cash to throw an ace in each slot in the rotation it'd be great, but we're getting a reasonable deal on a reasonable #4 starter.

by Jlubby on Feb 19, 2006 12:04 PM EST reply actions  

How did you decide who the #4 starters are?
When going with Support Neutral Value Added over Replacement (SNLVAR), a measure of a pitcher's value to a team in a season, adjusted for park effects and the lineups that a pitcher faces, I get this list for the 4th most valuable AL starters from 2005, by team:

Team- #4 pitcher  -   SNLVAR
CWS - Jose Contreras    5.0
OAK - Rich Harden       4.8
ANA - Paul Byrd         4.1
MIN - Kyle Lohse*       3.8
MIN - Brad Radke*       3.7   
CLE - Jake Westbrook    3.1
BOS - Bronson Arroyo    3.0
BAL - Daniel Cabrera    2.9
TOR - David Bush        2.6
NYY - Chien-Ming Wang   2.1
DET - Mike Maroth       2.0   
SEA - Aaron Sele        1.7
TEX - Kameron Loe       1.1
TBA - Mark Hendrickson  0.8
KCA - Mike Wood         0.8

So, by this measure, Lohse was actually the Twins' 3rd best pitcher last season, with Radke coming in 4th.  But even if we consider Lohse the #4, he was something like the fourth best #4 starter in the league last year, which is pretty darn good, and the difference between someone like Lohse and someone like Wang or Maroth is about 3 wins, which was the difference between the Twins being over .500 rather than under .500 last season.  (Or, the difference between Lohse and Arroyo would've been enough to push the Red Sox over the Yankees last year.)  But clearly, my list seems to differ from your list by a lot.

But what's a #4 starter anyway?  Lohse was the 30th best starter in the AL by this measure last season.  If AL teams drafted new rotations just to play one season, I have no doubt that Lohse would be drafted as the #3 starter for some team, and there's a slim chance he'd manage to slip in as the #2 starter for a team picking late in that hypothetical draft.

Would you pay Lohse more if he was the third best starter on the team?  Would you pay him less if he was the fifth best starter on the team?  Because no matter what his title is, he's going to be giving you the same value on the mound.

by ubelmann on Feb 19, 2006 2:28 PM EST reply actions  

4th starter cirteria
I used a combination of games started and innings pitched.  With Cleveland I went with Sabathia over Westbrook because of innings pitched.  With the Yankees I took Pavano over Wang because (1) Pavano was injured and (2) Wang proved to be one of their most reliable starters as the season went along.  With Oakland I didn't choose Harden because he was clearly a superior pitcher.

It's a subjective list, but I tried to be as fair as possible and give room for judgement when there wasn't an obvious choice.  There certainly weren't any motives in choosing these particular pitchers to prove a point, but I wanted something to compare Kyle against subjectively.

I like your last paragraph, a lot.  It's a great point.  It doesn't matter which slot he ends up in because you're paying him for his performance, not where he falls in the rotation.

My response is that I wouldn't pay Lohse more if he were the #3 starter, because I'd expect more of our third starter.  But of course we've been spoiled by pitching over the last 5 or 6 seasons, and like you said, he'd be a #3 guy for a lot of clubs.  Regardless, the point I wanted to make was that looking at Lohse objectively (as much as possible) should shed a little light on the premise that he's not as bad as advertised (except in 2004).

by Jesse on Feb 19, 2006 5:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed on Lohse
I don't mean to start a discussion about who is each team's 4th best pitcher, but I would like to point out how deep Oakland's pitching is, because it really is remarkable how deep their pitching is.  Saarloos was at best the A's 5th best pitcher last year, because Blanton, Zito, Haren, and Harden were better than Saarloos.  Harden was better than those other guys on a per-start basis, but he was only healthy enough to pitch 123 innings last year.  If he's healthy enough to pitch 200 innings a year, he's probably a perennial Cy Young candidate, but he hasn't shown he can do that just yet.  (Although, Lohse has shown he can stay healthy, and it's nice to know that you don't have to worry too much about the health of a couple of your pitchers.)  Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there are A's pitchers who are clearly better than Saarloos, which is scary, considering that the addition of Loaiza means Saarloos won't even be in the rotation anymore.

by ubelmann on Feb 19, 2006 6:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Ranking the pitchers selected
I would agree with those that question whether all these guys were really #4 starters.  Lets take a look at the rankings of the 14 chosen, based on how they performed in 2005, including their overall ranking amongst the top 5 starters from all 14 AL teams!


#16  Wells         99.919
#17  Sabathia      98.172
#20  Washburn      97.521
#25  Contreras     94.046
#29  Bonderman     90.532
#32  Bush          89.085
#36  Pavano        87.469
#39  Lohse         86.606
#43  Bedard        85.238
#44  Saarlos       83.434
#54  Waechter      77.933
#61  Meche         68.483
#63  Carrasco      68.394
#69  Drese         59.379

This places Lohse as the 8th best of this group.

by roger @ Twinkie Town on Feb 20, 2006 8:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Inside the numbers
Just curious to know what the numbers in the right hand column are and where they come from.  Obviously it's a better/worse thing, but what's the equation?  I'd like to look at the numbers and how they relate to the starters for each of the AL clubs.

by Jesse on Feb 20, 2006 3:00 PM EST up reply actions  

The formula
I would refer you to two postings I did in early January.  The first on January 1st, "The AL's top starting 5."  The second which included an explanation of the formula I developed was on January 3rd, "The formula."

by roger @ Twinkie Town on Feb 20, 2006 4:25 PM EST up reply actions  

The #4 starters in my study...
included 10 of the players listed by jc.  Following is the list of #4 starters from my study, with the four who are different listed in bold.


Washburn     Angels       97.521
Wakefield    BoSox        94.324
Contreras    ChiSox       94.046
Westbrook    Cleveland    91.098
Bonderman    Detroit      90.532
Bush         Toronto      89.085
Pavano       Yankees      87.469
Lohse        Twins        86.606
Bedard       Baltimore    85.238
Saarlos      Oakland      83.434
Waechter     Tampa Bay    77.933
Meche        Seattle      68.483
Carrasco     KansasCity   68.394
Park         Texas        66.685

Lohse also ranks 8th on this list of #4 starters, yet, as the 39th best starter in the AL, he would be good enough to be the #3 starter for several clubs.  He is also a bit better than the average #4 starter as his 86.606 rating was slightly better than the average 84.346 rating of the 14 #4 starters in my study.  

His performance in 2005 doesn't tell us how he is going to pitch in 2006...yet it was a major factor in his arbitration win!

by roger @ Twinkie Town on Feb 20, 2006 4:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Contreras
Please note that Contreras was included in your group, therefore, 11 of the 14 from my study are the same as included in your posting.

by roger @ Twinkie Town on Feb 20, 2006 4:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Pavano better than Lohse?
Lohse pitched 78 more innings than Pavano last year.  Pavano's K-rate and BB-rate were slightly better, but the difference in each is maybe around 1 per ning innings.  Pavano's HR rate was worse than Lohse's and Pavano's ERA was worse than Lohse's ERA.

I really don't see how Pavano could have been more valuable than Lohse last season when he pitched so many fewer games and gave up more runs per game in the games that he did pitch.

by ubelmann on Feb 20, 2006 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Innings
I don't think the formula accounts for innings well enough. I've suggested a three-fold increase in the multiplier for innings, but I would be satisfied with a two-fold increase.
Joe Mauer for MVP.

by cmathewson on Feb 20, 2006 6:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Innings
The formula does take innings into consideration.  I know CMathewson disagrees, however, increasing the value of innings would allow mediocre pitchers with a lot of innings to be rated higher than very good pitchers pitching something like 2/3 of the year.  Furthermore, they were almost in a virtual tie, finishing within 1 point of each other.  The breakdown between the two was:

                   Lohse          Pavano

ERA                28.708         25.157
Innings Pitched    14.106          7.895
K/9ip               7.220          8.400
BB/9ip             20.303         27.778
HR/9ip              2.256          1.634
WHIP               14.013         13.605
Bonues Pts              0          3.000
(Pavano had 1 cg and 1 shutout)

Total              86.606         87.469

Lohse earned significant points for innings pitched, however, Pavano was better with less BB as well as earning 3 points for a complete game and a shutout.
 

by roger @ Twinkie Town on Feb 20, 2006 7:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Innings
The best way to deal with innings pitched is to use the concept of replacement level.  Each team needs about 200 IP out of each spot in the starting rotation.  So, if Kevin Brown is supposed to be one of those starters, but gets injured, then the rest of his innings need to be pitched by the 6th best pitcher on the staff.  So, for the sake of comparing pitchers on equal footing, we just say that each team's #6 starter is a replacement-level pitcher.  Looking at what Baseball Prospectus' stats, it looks like a replacement level ERA is something like 5.50.  That seems like a pretty reasonable expectation for a team's sixth best pitcher.

So, let's go through a little calculation on how many runs 178 innings of Lohse plus 22 innings of a replacement pitcher gives up compared to 100 innings of Brown and 100 innings of a replacement pitcher.

Pitcher     -   IP   - ERA  - Runs
Lohse       -  178.2 - 4.18 -  83
Replacement -   21.1 - 5.50 -  13
Total       -  200.0 - 4.32 -  96

Pitcher     -   IP   - ERA  - Runs
Pavano      -  100.0 - 4.77 -  53
Replacement -  100.0 - 5.50 -  61
Total       -  200.0 - 5.13 - 114

That's a difference of almost 20 runs.  A good rule of thumb is that 10 runs is about one win, so by this rough calculation, Lohse is about two full wins better than Pavano.  Using the support-neutral stats at Baseball Prospectus, Lohse rates out as about 4 wins better than Pavano, so this estimate is pretty conservative as to how much better Lohse was than Pavano.  And two wins is a big enough gap by itself, that no reasonable metric should have these two guys anywhere near each other.

Those innings make a huge difference, because more often than not, when you have to call someone up from the minors as a starter, he's going to be pretty bad.  Plus, if you start to get multiple guys in the same rotation who can't pitch many innings, you wind up having to call up even worse substitutes to fill in.  Innings matter a lot more than you're giving them credit for.

by ubelmann on Feb 20, 2006 8:15 PM EST up reply actions  

My formula
is designed to rate pitchers, therefore, replacement level of what another pitcher would do in the innings pitcher X did not pitch is not a consideration.  The base used for innings pitched in the formula is 190 innings.  As stated previously, there is a deduct for pitching less than that which accounted for Lohse receiving roughly 7 points more than Pavano.

by roger @ Twinkie Town on Feb 21, 2006 8:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Okay then...
...but unless you can explain why your system is better, give me some reason why I should think it means anything, then I don't really feel like I need to take it seriously.

by ubelmann on Feb 21, 2006 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

The point
If the point is to rate pitchers against an arbitrary scale, your system is good because it takes into account the relevant variables.

But if the point is to rate pitchers according to the value they bring to their respective teams, then an arbitrary scale is not good enough. You need to demonstrate that your scale measures the value pitchers bring to their team by weighting the variables correctly.

We are merely pointing out that it doesn't jive with conventional wisdom as to the weight of the variables. The most obvious one is innings pitched. But it wouldn't hurt to review the state of the art in pitching analysis for the other variables as well.

Joe Mauer for MVP.

by cmathewson on Feb 21, 2006 12:45 PM EST up reply actions  

It all began
with an attempt to rate minor league prospects, having something to base an opinion on rather than saying I like player X vs. player Y for the 18th best, etc.  I think we have previously discussed and I have agreed that next year, some fine tuning is likely needed...and I have some ideas of some changes that should be made.  

I later revised it and used it to compare starting rotations, thus, compare the 70 starters in the AL.  You don't have to agree with it or like it...the fact is with spring training starting now is not the time to go back and make changes to something in which I invested 30-40 hours of time last fall.

by roger @ Twinkie Town on Feb 21, 2006 2:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Wha???
"the fact is with spring training starting now is not the time to go back and make changes to something in which I invested 30-40 hours of time last fall."

Well that doesn't make any sense at all.  Your formula is admitedly quite imperfect.  As we said, the numbers are completely arbitrary.  If you want it to be respected, you are going to need to fix that.

Frankly, I would much rather see VoRP than your arbitrary numbers.  YOur scale is fun to discuss, but you use it every time we talk about pitchers, and it just isn't acurate enough to warrent submission as evidence.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 21, 2006 10:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree
There is no way Pavano is better than Lohse.

The problem with that formula is it assigns arbitrary numbers.  For such a formula to work, the coefficiants of multiplication would have to be proven to actually relate to results.  At current, they are arbitray and do not.

Pavano had an ERA four fifths of a run higher and and OPB 80 points higher.  He pitched 70 less innings.  Regardless of any other stat, allready Lohse is a significantly superior pitcher.

I think Lohse was a hell of a fourth starter last year, putting up an above average ERA (league average 4.35) from a back-end rotation position.  Furthermore, he comes at a reasonably modest price.  Compareable pitcher, Jeff Weaver, who had a slightly worse ERA last year in a much better pitcher's league recieved twice Lohse's contract this year.  Lohse provides great value for his rotation spot and cost while he pitches, and he allows Liriano, perhaps baseballs most highly regarde dpitching prospect, to finish his development properly with a few more months in teh minors.  When Liriano is ready, the Twins can choose to trade Lohse if the right deal appears.

In short, Lohse is a valuble player to the team because he has a good price tag, good value over other like pitchers, and he provides the Twins with a great deal of pitching depth.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 20, 2006 11:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Double value to innings
Took a look at this, and doubled the value for innings pitched to 30 points.  Took 5 points each from BB/9ip, K/9ip and WHIP to keep the formula at a 100 point norm.  Also, revised the CG and SO bonuses to 1 pt each.  For the most part, players stayed the same...with the major difference to Lohse and Pavano (Wakefield also moved ahead of Washburn).  The following includes both the old and revised formula, with the revision listed first:


Wakefield      99.187      94.324
Washburn       98.302      97.521
Contreras      97.833      94.046
Westbrook      94.791      91.098
Bonderman      92.399      90.532
Lohse          88.034      86.606
Bush           85.276      89.085
Saarlos        84.888      83.434
Bedard         84.254      85.238
Pavano         78.903      87.469
Waechter       77.243      77.933
Meche          70.400      68.483
Carrasco       68.377      68.394
Park           65.331      66.685

Is Pavano better than Lohse?  If you put an emphasis on innings pitched and era, yes.  If you put an emphasis on other factors, they are about equal.  Anyway, the major difference in these changes was to promote Lohse a few spots at the expense of Pavano.

by roger @ Twinkie Town on Feb 21, 2006 7:40 PM EST up reply actions  

The List
I like this list of fourth starters much better.  Sabathia was one that really stuck out for me.  He is absolutly not the fourth starter for cleveland.  He was the ace coming in, lost that to Millwood, and now is the "ace" again (although even the Indians admit he isn't really a full ace).  

I think Lohse is a hell of a deal this year.  Just look at Paul Byrd.  Lohse and Byrd had identical ERA's last year (Byrd's was actually a bit the worse) and Byrd is getting 8.5 million to pitch for the Angels this year.

I used to absolutly hate Kyle Lohse, and while I dont love him now, I want him here.  I dont think he'll have a Garland like breakout year, But I think if we get the same or close to last year's production from him, which we should, he is very valuble and well worth the money.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 20, 2006 1:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Paul Byrd
Byrd's ERA was nearly a half a run lower than Lohse's.

by Sulla on Feb 21, 2006 6:34 PM EST up reply actions  

expectations
I love the list - it does make me less angry that Lohse won his arbitration.  I guess we got a good deal on a good 4th starter.  The problem is, I think we all expected him to be a quality #2 by this time.  Were our expectations too high? Should I be happy with an above average #4 at a below average price?

by fletch on Feb 20, 2006 4:55 PM EST reply actions  

I don't know how the list was formulated...
but Bedard and Bonderman are NOT #4 starters.  In fact, they both might be #1's this year for their staffs.

I don't know whether we should deal Lohse or not (if the right deal comes along, I guess we should if Baker/Liriano are ready), but he IS a bargain in this market.  

by djskilbr on Feb 21, 2006 4:44 PM EST reply actions  

Bedard & Bonderman
Above in a comment I mentioned I based #4 status primarily on innings pitched and starts, but made some exceptions in cases of injury.

Baltimore Top 4
Name           Inn  Starts
R. Lopez     209.1    35
B. Chen      197.1    32
D. Cabrera   161.3    29
E. Bedard    141.2    24

Detroit Top 4
Name           Inn  Starts
J. Johnson   210.0    33
M. Maroth    209.0    34
N. Robertson 196.2    32
J. Bonderman 189.0    29

This is just an example, using the two names you specifically disagreed with, of how I rated pitchers on their teams.  On a team like Detroit, it's hard to pick any of these guys to be a one or a two...but this is how I did it.  You're right about Bedard--he could build upon a solid 2005 and become a top-tier pitcher for his team in 2006; but these judgements were made for 2005

Again, it's a subjective list used to compare Kyle against.  Whether you used my list, Roger's or Ubelmann's, I imagine the results would be pretty similar.

by Jesse on Feb 21, 2006 8:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Bedard
If Bedard bounces right back into his pre-injury form from last year, he's a legitimate #1 for the O's in 06.  However, the nature of the O's lineup is so nebulous I consider it fair to rank Bedard the number #4.  Chen may repeat his performance of last year, making him arguably a #2 or #3 candidate instead of a #5.  Cabrera may have a breakout year instead of Bedard, catipulting him from the #3 spot to the front, and while Lopez will probably put up similar numbers to what he's accomplished in the past, it will still take a strong improvement by Bedard to surpass him.  Plus, it isn't out of the question to expect Benson to do better than Ponson did last year.  Heck, it isn't out of the question to expect me to do better than Ponson did last year.

Point being, while Bedard certainly might not be the #4 this year, he's as likely as any number of guys on their staff.

by Jlubby on Feb 22, 2006 1:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Huh? What?
If you're in the top third of players at your position statistically, you're also eligible.

For arbitration?  This is gibberish.  Also, the home run leader each year is declared a free agent. LOL.

Sometimes your low self-esteem is just good common sense.

by statman on Feb 22, 2006 2:05 AM EST reply actions  

Re: gibberish
From the source I used, this is the exact wording on arbitration for the comment in question:

"An un-signed player who has at least 3 years of service time is also eligible for arbitration. The top 1 third of players as determined by their statistics are also be eligble for arbitration. Players are arbitration-eligible again in their 4th and 5th years of service, if they do not have a multi-year contract and meet requirments."

If this is incorrect you're welcome to enlighten all of us.

by Jesse on Feb 22, 2006 3:08 AM EST up reply actions  

I think you are talking about Super 2s
I don't believe that has anything to do with stats, but has to do with service time.

The top 1/6 of players with more than 2 years experience and less than 3 full years are considered Super 2s and are eligible for arbitration.  This is how Cuddyer became eligible this year.

by snuessle on Feb 22, 2006 11:15 AM EST up reply actions  

Determining a #4 starter
The only way to do this legitimately is determine who the team thought its fourth starter was going into the season.  If you can.

Most statistical fallacies start with an incorrect basis such as this.

Sometimes your low self-esteem is just good common sense.

by statman on Feb 22, 2006 2:08 AM EST reply actions  

Not if you carefully state what you're measuring..
For instance, in my list, I said that I was going to list the 4th most valuable starter from each team for 2005.  That might not jive with what you consider to be a "4th starter," but like I said there, too, the idea of a 4th starter is rather ill-defined.  (That is, Lohse would've been Kansas City's best pitcher last year.  If he would have been traded to Kansas City, would that make him an ace?)  If you're careful about what your definition of fourth starter is, you don't need to go back and guess what the teams were expecting at all.

by ubelmann on Feb 22, 2006 1:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes...
Lohse would have been KC's #1.

So I tend to agree, we can't just arbitrarily pick "4th starters."  Bonderman was clearly Detroit's #1, for instance.

by djskilbr on Feb 22, 2006 1:44 PM EST reply actions  

How about...
How about this:

According BP's VORP rating, Lohse was ranked 57th amoung all pitchers last year.  That had mim sandwiched between Mark Prior and Jamiee Moyer.  He was worth only 1.2 VORP less than Brad Radke, a player the Twins are paying ten million dollars (with no one questioning the logic).  He was worth 5.5 VORP less than Josh Beckett, a player who just recieved a HUGE, long-term contract.  He ranked higher than pitchers such as Jeff Weaver, Greg Maddox, Jeff SUppan, David Wells, Mike Mussina, Kris Benson, and Javier Vasquez, all of whom are payed significantly more, some over double, what Lohse is.

Once again, bargain.

by AdamOnFirst on Feb 23, 2006 1:07 AM EST reply actions  

YES
Thank you Adam.  Good stuff!

by djskilbr on Feb 23, 2006 3:03 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

TT is an SB Nation blog of, by and for the fans. We strive to be the best Minnesota Twins blog by providing quality content and analysis, as well as daily news and notes on the team. We hope you'll make Twinkie Town your home for all things Twins!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Jedi2_small
The Billy Beane Memorial Pick 6 Challenge™

Recent FanPosts

Tc_at_tf_small
Hope in Beloit?
The_jet_small
Poll: How long 'till a Trevor Plouffe DFA?
Snickers_small
"Over" (Ode To Danny Valencia)
Small
Joe Mauer - Does he need to pull the ball more?
Summer_09_wedding_and_frank_084_small
Poll: Where should Mauer play long-term?
Msb_mariohit_small
(Re)Building an Organization
Fitch372aurora_073_small
Denard Span one of the "Least Intimidating Batters" of the past 5 years?
Small
Poll: Twins Bullpen
Small
Gardy's Job Security

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Twinkie Town On Twitter

Yahoo_full_count

Editor-In-Chief

Twinkietown_small Jesse

Senior Writer

Small Bobomojo

Hrbek_small Jon Marthaler

The_jet_small cmathewson

Gladdentwins_small Adam Peterson

Hosken_powell_autograph_small RandBall's Stu

Mustache_small Andrew Bryz-Gornia

Twins_woo_small Steve Adams

W00t__2__small brandonwarne52

Special Contributor

Small roger13

Untitled_small Trevour

Chairmanmauer_small fischean

Metargetfieldjose_small myjah

Small Brady Eyestone