Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Anonymous Eagle covering Marquette!

Felix, Greinke, And Some Reflecting

May 19th, they say, was the turning point. Following a rough start against the Angels in which he gave up a bunch of hits and a bunch of stolen bases, Felix was called out by Don Wakamatsu for a lack of focus and determination, and from then on it was like night and day. Beginning the next weekend with eight innings against San Francisco, Felix ripped off a four-month streak the likes of which few have ever seen. Over his final 25 games, Felix would allow just 40 earned runs while turning in 24 quality starts, and Wakamatsu was praised by many as the manager that finally got through to our ace of frustration. Felix, it seemed, had arrived, and either because of Wakamatsu or by sheer coincidence, the sentiment has been that something clicked that night in May, turning Felix into the guy we'd been waiting for him to become.

And, sure enough, that guy is amazing. We've all heard of lucky ERAs, but it's hard to fluke your way to a 1.98 over 182 innings. From May 24th through the end of the season, Felix was both a shutdown righty and a workhorse, keeping the opponent off the board while not once throwing fewer than 101 pitches. It was like the best of both worlds, as Felix partnered Rich Harden's effectiveness with Roy Halladay-level durability, and it was a performance many feel would've won Felix the Cy Young had he been able to sustain it all year. It was that first month and a half, they say, that wound up holding him back.

They're probably right, in that had Felix run a 1.98 ERA over a full season, voters would've had a hell of a time placing him second. But while Felix's streak was extraordinary, it may actually serve to make the strongest case in Greinke's favor. Just look at the following comparison:

Stat Felix, post-5/19 Greinke, year
ERA 1.98 2.16
RA 2.67 2.51
FIP 3.01 2.33
IP/start 7.2 6.9
Pit/start 109.6 105.4
BB% 7.2% 5.6%
K% 21.9% 26.4%
HR% 1.4% 1.2%

From May 24th through the end of the season, Felix pitched as well as we've seen him in four years. He proved himself to his coaches, he proved himself to opponents, and he proved himself to a fanbase that'd been waiting to see him take his game to the next level. Felix's turnaround is seen as his ascent. His ascent to the top, his ascent into the upper echelon of pitchers in the world. His ascent to the throne.

And Greinke was still better.

Greinke's ERA, Greinke's FIP, Greinke's tRA...not only was Greinke better than Felix in 2009, he was better than Felix at his best in 2009, and he was better than the 12 starts we got out of Felix in 2005. The hot streak that was supposed to legitimize Felix's candidacy instead works for Greinke, because Greinke was better than that hot streak, and he was better over a full season.

You could, of course, argue that Greinke kind of got lucky with his home run rate, that 11 in 33 starts for a flyball pitcher isn't a sustainable level of performance. And you'd probably be right. Greinke will almost certainly allow a higher rate of home runs going forward. But while projections and regressions look forward, statistics look backward, and the fact of the matter is that, along with all of his other achievements, Greinke only threw 11 pitches that got hit out of the park last year. Only 11 of his pitches had the necessary characteristics such that the opposing batter was able to hit a home run, and though that likely isn't repeatable, it's what happened, and it's one of the reasons why this will go down as one of the least-debated Cy Youngs of all time.

Felix's May 19th light switch was his strongest argument for the award. And when a player's strongest argument turns out to support his competition, that leaves absolutely no doubt as to who deserves to win. Would I take Greinke as the better starting pitcher going forward? I'm not sure. That one would require more thought. But an assertion that requires no further thought at all is that, in 2009, Zack Greinke was the best pitcher in the world. Congratulations to one eccentric son of a bitch.

0 recs  |  Comment 73 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

As much as I love Felix, I agree that Greinke deserved the award this year.

 Hopefully, Felix will not have any arm issues in the next 6 and we resign him this offseason. He is our CY pitcher of the future. He can bring home that award in several of the next upcoming seasons. He just needs to do this as a Mariner.

by Sinking Away on Nov 17, 2009 9:10 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Why does he need to be fair to Greinke

When the post is defending the selection of Greinke?

Try not to take me too seriously

by calim on Nov 18, 2009 2:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Read the second sentence.
And if you did the comparison would be totally silly in favor of Greinke.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 18, 2009 2:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm convinced quite a few people only read the subject line.

Completely ignoring the rest, this type of misunderstanding happens so frequently.

by Kermit. on Nov 18, 2009 8:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree.

Watermelon.

by killer_ewok18 on Nov 18, 2009 8:32 AM PST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

I should have worded that better, it sounds too smug.

It’s something I catch myself doing from time to time. In my case, I’m typically thinking of a response before thinking about what I’ve just read.

by Kermit. on Nov 18, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm quite sure I read both sentences, dudes

And my point stands. What’s the point in taking out Greinke’s worst six weeks when it’s already obvious that his entire season was already better?

Try not to take me too seriously

by calim on Nov 18, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The circle has been completed!

I’m pretty sure the original comment was heading this line of thinking off at the pass, by pointing that out in a humorous fashion. And then somehow it arrived here anyway, and what is really strange to me is why the fuck I’m involved. If I’m not the least math/statistics savvy dude on this site, I’m giving that guy a run for his money.

by Kermit. on Nov 18, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I hope their respective FIPs

are posted on Felix’s wall somewhere this offseason.

by stupidquestions on Nov 17, 2009 10:05 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I was thinking about this.
You could, of course, argue that Greinke kind of got lucky with his home run rate, that 11 in 33 starts for a flyball pitcher isn’t a sustainable level of performance. And you’d probably be right. Greinke will almost certainly allow a higher rate of home runs going forward. But while projections and regressions look forward, statistics look backward, and the fact of the matter is that, along with all of his other achievements, Greinke only threw 11 pitches that got hit out of the park last year.

This has been on my mind a lot recently with regards to award discussions. I even thought about making a fanpost about it. But if there was a hypothetical player that hit, say, a 17% line drive rate with only a .130 iso, but ran a BABIP of something like .700 – even though that player was obscenely lucky, wouldn’t he still deserve the title of “best player of year X” even if year Y he is expected to be much worse, possibly worse than league average?

Something I’ve been thinking about. I haven’t decided on an answer.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 17, 2009 10:51 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Absolutely yes

I think that, when you’re looking back, you have to consider what the player actually did, and if a hitter actually posted a BABIP of .700, then he’s the one that recorded those hits, and he’s the one that comes out looking really valuable.

With pitchers, I haven’t decided, but I do think that – again, just looking back – we ought to put more weight on ERA, accounting for park and a bit for defense to hold everyone to the same standard. The reason FIP is imperfect in hindsight is that it assumes a certain BABIP, when over a small sample a pitcher may have deserved a really high one or a really low one.

Assessing value vs. assessing the future are two very different things.

by Jeff Sullivan on Nov 17, 2009 11:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's what I've been thinking too.

It gets more difficult, though, when you consider the 2nd place player. In the above hitting example, imagine some player went all Barry Bonds on the league with little/no luck involved. He’d probably still end up bringing less runs to his team, but he had a remarkable season that had pretty much no luck involved, and it’s hard to say “Let’s claim this player who was so clearly unbelievably lucky was better than this player on year X even though he had no luck involved.”

I think that in many ways that’s actually okay, but I have a harder time saying it without feeling guilty. And I absolutely agree with you with regard to ERA. If Silva put up a 0.00 ERA next year for a whole year, he would certainly have to get credit for it, even though it would be aided entirely by defense. Still.. Silva. You know? It’s hard to come out strong on that point as well.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 17, 2009 11:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If some player was able to go all Barry Bonds on the league with little/no luck involved

then I think he’s more likely to repeat the performance in the future and be in line for the next postseason award.

With All-Star Games, I like it when players who have never been to the ASG but have had a ridiculous first half get a chance to go, be in, and play with the elite talent in the league. I think I mostly feel the same way towards postseason awards.

Batted .393/.614/.464 for 2009 Diablos, #5 in OBP for PSSBL Rocky Division.

by Two Rs and Two Ls on Nov 17, 2009 11:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd like to think this but if they were obscenely lucky that means that their contributions weren't really attributable to their actual skills

I mean if it doesn’t speak to the value of the actual player’s ability at playing baseball in that given year, it speaks to random deviation, and I don’t think we should be lauding praise on people for things they have no control over.

by OlSalty on Nov 18, 2009 12:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Okay, but think about that -

We are assuming extreme, probably impossible examples, but a guy with a .700 BABIP is going to have something like a .700/.750/.830 line. That’s a 1.580 OPS – not to mention that that undervalues his OBP, which was .750 – In this imaginary scenario, this guy essentially was on base every single time he was up with at least a single, if not more. Even though you could point to BABIP and say, “Oh shit, he was so lucky” do you really think you could say he doesn’t deserve to be considered the best player that year?

Or, to put it another way, if Ichiro had a 1.000/1.000/1.000 line – He got on base every at bat with a hit but never hit more than a single – do you really think you could say that he wasn’t the best player that year even though Barry Bonds #2 also had a great season and had less luck involved?

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 18, 2009 12:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Basically, I can see both views

but at the same time, I have a hard time being happy with that decision. Yeah, you can go for the non-luck guy, but the other guy clearly did so much better. Or you can go for the guy with the unbelievable season, but the other guy did amazing -arguably better – and was simply not as lucky. Either way, I can’t see how you could definitively say that one is better than the other or more deserving that year.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 18, 2009 1:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In terms of results, yes he would be the best player in the majors that year

But results don’t really equate to talent, and in my view talent is what the awards should ideally be all about.

In that scenario, he would’ve had the best results by far, yes. Does that make him the best player that year? I don’t think so, because obviously an enormous amount of his performance was pure chance. And in that scenario we aren’t celebrating a players talent at all, we’re celebrating an extremely unlikely deviation in the statistical data. Which has nothing to do with the individual, really, so why should they get accolades and praise?

by OlSalty on Nov 18, 2009 2:17 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Like for example, during those 50 some games where Manny was out of the lineup, Juan Pierre posted an OPS over .900 due to a babip over .400, despite a career average nowhere remotely close to that

Should he be celebrated for that performance? Despite all the obvious evidence that he is an incredibly shitty hitter and the fact that for the rest of the season he mostly returned to his normal, shitty self? I don’t think he suddenly started hitting the ball to places where fielders were not just because Manny Ramirez wasn’t in the lineup. But people just ate that performance up, when it was just an incredible run of luck on his part.

by OlSalty on Nov 18, 2009 2:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But how someone did in 2009 has nothing to do with talent. How someone did in 2009 has to do with how they did in 2009.

I wouldn’t want Juan Pierre on my team if he pulled off those astounding numbers for an entire year, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t happen. For example, if a player hits 100 home runs, but each of them barely hit over the wall in the most hitter friendly area of any given stadium (essentially right down the line), you don’t think he deserves to be rewarded for his performance even if he is a true talent 15 home run hitter?

Awards are about how someone did. Talent is about how someone will do. Albert Pujols is a better player than Jack Wilson, but if Jack Wilson good lucked his way into an Albert Pujols season and Albert Pujols bad lucked his way into a Jack Wilson season, Albert Pujols is not the one that should be getting an award for his performance, despite being the best player in terms of talent.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I want to point out that I don’t think it’s so simple when you are talking about events that happened, not events that will happen. Pujols will always be a better hitter than Wilson, but if Wilson hits better, even if luck is involved, once the season is over, why shouldn’t he be awarded for what he brought to his team – since those numbers can never go away. He did that well, even if he didn’t necessarily deserve to do that well, and those runs he created are runs he created, even if there was luck involved.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 18, 2009 2:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I just don't think you can entirely discount the "why" in favor of "how" someone did in a given year

At least when it comes to giving out awards. That’s my philosophy, and I see your point but I can’t in good conscience just ignore that I know for a fact what a player did that year had little to nothing to do with the player himself.

by OlSalty on Nov 18, 2009 2:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I mean - the hard part is that I don't disagree with you.

I think both ways are valid, but whichever I choose, I end up regretting the other one.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 18, 2009 2:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

One more.

I know I’m overkilling this, and I’m really not calling you out, but I’m wide awake and need something to occupy my thought, so here goes:

So there are two researchers – Doctor Brilliant and Doctor Dumbass. They are both trying to cure cancer. Doctor Brilliant studies thousands upon thousands of chemicals and microbes and finds that none of them are able to cure cancer, but he keeps trying. Meanwhile, drunk one day coming into work, Doctor Dumbass comes in and urinates on a petri dish. In an instant, cancer is gone, and Doctor Dumbass has accidentally discovered that urinating on someone’s blood cures cancer.

Who should be awarded? Doctor Dumbass did nothing intelligent to get those results, but he still got them, whereas Doctor Brilliant had all the intelligence in the world but came up short. While I’d have a hard time awarding Doctor Dumbass, since he’s a dumbass, I’d have a harder time awarding Doctor Brilliant for not doing as well as Doctor Dumbass.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 18, 2009 2:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, because you brought up the concept of curing diseases

There have been many times in history where a medical cure has worked without people being entirely sure “why” it worked. But while I think it is an admirable thing for the sake of it’s performance, because you don’t know the various pathways by which this cure achieves it’s end you don’t really know potential side effects or long-term future consequences, either. So a scientist whose cure is completely unexplainable should not be held to the same esteemed standard as someone who can explain their research better. The better you understand it and can explain it, the better it is.

The key difference here though is that we know exactly why these players overperformed their ability and can account for it in our data. We can’t do that for someone who inexplicably finds a cure for cancer or something from a completely out of the blue source.

by OlSalty on Nov 18, 2009 3:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We know that the result was improbable.

We do not necessarily know what was luck and what wasn’t. In general, with the exception of the three true outcomes, it’s all luck – it is just expected that you get about .290 or so of the luck to be in your favor. There’s no way to parcel out which hits he deserved and which he didn’t.

Still, again, if I’m saying “Player X had the best season of 2009” I am always talking about results, not the mans with which they got there. And if I am going to award someone for the best season of 2009, I have a hard time justifying (note: hard time, but still possible) giving the award for “best season” to someone that had a worse season, even if there was more talent involved in how they got there.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 18, 2009 3:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's the difference between...

…the Nobel Prize and the National Academy of Sciences. My old boss put it this way: ‘Winning the Nobel Prize is like being World Series MVP, getting into the National Academy of Sciences is like getting into the Hall of Fame." It’s not a perfect example, obviously, as generally the Nobel Prize winners would be more like World Series MVP from a list of Hall of Famers, but the idea holds. In order to win a Nobel Prize, you have to get lucky enough to get a result that is ground breaking and do all of the hard work that accompanies it. This might be more specific to Medicine, but probably applies to a lesser degree in the other fields as well.

As an aside, in science, there are screens where you can test drugs against tens of thousands (and getting into hundreds of thousands) of samples. It’s still somewhat expensive, but it’s not brilliant science anymore. I wouldn’t call them a Doctor Dumbass, but Doctor Brilliant is more likely to be someone involved in rational drug design and only have 10 molecules to try.

If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.

by GhettoBear04 on Nov 18, 2009 8:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

But awards aren't based on true talent level

they’re based on results from the previous season.

by seattlebruin on Nov 18, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Great article

by Joe Posnanski over a related topic here. I also put it in the fanshots.

by Slow Country on Nov 17, 2009 11:42 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

As I mentioned upthread -

if you drop Felix’s worst six weeks, then you should drop Greinke’s worst six weeks, And if you do that the case for giving the award to Greinke becomes even stronger.

by Steve Nelson on Nov 18, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't say Greinke's worst six weeks

I said his first six, just like for Felix. You have to be consistent in your methods. If you take away Greinke’s freakishly good start to the season his line isn’t dramatically better than Felix’s.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Nov 18, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Discussing logic with the illogical is futile

They bring you down to their level with their lack of logic, then beat you with their experience.

by Steve Nelson on Nov 18, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The only thing anomalous about his first six starts

was that he didn’t give up a single homer. His K and BB rates were basically constant all year long. Since you’re so excited about this particular idea Bearskin, why don’t you do it and just post the comparative results. The game logs are out there, the math is really easy.

What you will find is that Grienke still deserved the Cy Young.

by philosofool on Nov 18, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It can be hard to tell at times

and sometimes it’s not satirical but actual ignorance and people here respond thinking it is sarcasm and then we get shit for not being more helpful in correcting people new to statistical analysis.

It’s a finely edged sword.

by Matthew on Nov 18, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd guess that's mostly a problem with newer members.

We know enough to know that Rugburn is not a complete idiot, and I thought the comment was really well done. I chuckled, at least.

I think it can be a bit tougher for new members who don’t know the regulars, but… I mean, just read the comment.

by marc w on Nov 18, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes!

Obviously, mods are in a difficult spot given the volume of comments they have to read. I completely understand that there are hundreds of deeply, deeply unintelligent comments posted. But that shouldn’t prevent us from laughing at decent satire.
(This was a broad comment too, not saying that you or other users intentionally misread the tone of comments).

by marc w on Nov 18, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

To be really successful as satire that subtle ...

the satire needs to lead to a situation that is so beyond belief that the absurdity is apparent on the face. The Swiftian Modest Proposal, e.g. In this case, virtually identical arguments have been made in full sincerity by people voting on these awards and by many fanboys.

Lacking that, when I’m being satirical I usually try to drop a few hints into the post that suggest a satirical tone. The comments will blow by some people, but careful readers will pick up on (or should I say, “up with which they will pick”).

by Steve Nelson on Nov 18, 2009 3:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree, but that's a matter of preference.

I just don’t think the satire needs to lead to something patently absurd. You can’t call it subtle in that case (no one has ever called “A Modest Proposal” subtle); it can still be funny, but it’s categorically different from something that uses illogic to result in something that’s almost plausible. The joke only works if you assume that the reader recognizes the illogical premise, and yeah, maybe that’s not always going to work. But well played, Mr. Rugburn.

by marc w on Nov 18, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I should have translated "Viva el Rey"

Long live the King. Duh.

Anyway, it was the second part where he emphasized the first six weeks part. That made it seem (for what ever reason) like he was being serious.

by philosofool on Nov 19, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Also, there's this from Greinke:
That’s pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible.

I will smash your face into a jelly.

by Phildopip on Nov 18, 2009 7:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I was thinking about that too.

Specifically this part:

"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals’ left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."

If Greinke managed to adjust his pitching to take advantage of his team’s defense and home park, then he definitely should get credit for some of the things that are generally considered outside of the pitcher’s control.

by Nadingo on Nov 18, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sure he tried more then once

But they have that page blocked through the Royals’ network firewall.

by Deelron on Nov 18, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It says he was trying to pitch for a fly ball.

Doesn’t mean he was successful.

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Nov 18, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The statement also indicates he was pitching for a fly-ball situationally

It doesn’t say that he always tried for fly balls Kaufman; just that he did it at times.

I also think it’s a hilarious given Dayton Moore’s belief in Betancourt’s defensive prowess. If Greinke (and Bannister) concurred with Dayton, at critical game junctures they would be trying to have the batters put the ball on the ground on the left side instead of in the air.

by Steve Nelson on Nov 18, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Though this is fantastic

I do think it is funny that he is basically saying “That’s how I pitch – I try to pitch really well.”

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Nov 18, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.
Start posting about the Mariners »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

Cbs_fantasy_baseball_promo

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Clement_small
The Banner Unveiled

Recent FanPosts

Small
Looking for Help to Upload Photos
Small
MLB TV Premium/ 1 yr for $19.95
Image_small
Unearthing a nice memory. Can you help me out here?
Small
Kill it now! Riggleman and McLaren back again
Small
What makes A-Rod such a good hitter?
Small
Book on the '95 Division Series
Whiteken_small
3/14/10 Offtop - Visual Awesomeness!
Pete-carroll-small_small
3/10/10 Offtop of Woohoo new things
Small
Fullscreen MLB.TV on Dual Screen Setups

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

From foreground left, San Francisco Giants pitchers Joe Martinez, Matt Cain and Brian Wilson run in the outfield during baseball spring training at Scottsdale Stadium in Scottsdale, Ariz., Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

SB Nation's 2010 MLB Previews: San Francisco Giants, No Thunder In The Lumber

Milwaukee Brewers' Casey McGehee signs autographs before a spring training baseball game against the Cleveland Indians on Monday, March 15, 2010, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Morry Gash) +6 updates

Spring Training News & Notes 3/16: Catching Up With Everyone

New York Yankees' Robinson Cano follows through on his 200th career hit during a baseball game against the Boston Red Sox at Yankee Stadium, Sunday, Sept. 27, 2009, in New York. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens) link

Is Robinson Cano A Good Choice To Hit Behind A-Rod?

More from SBNation.com >


Sexy People

Small Matthew

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Marioavy_small JonBBT