Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

A Quick Look At The Rotation

At the moment, the Mariners are known to be interested in bringing in two final pieces - a bat and a starting pitcher. We've already talked a lot about the state of the offense and isolated that bat as likely being a righty capable of playing the outfield. The rotation, however, has drawn a considerably lesser amount of attention, and it's for that reason that I think it would behoove us to take a look at what we currently have on hand.

The top of the rotation, right now, should be known to anyone. For the third year in a row, the M's will attempt to field the best 1-2 punch in the league, only this time they'll be doing it with a little more statistical support. Cliff Lee and Felix Hernandez. It's all anyone's talking about. Ask the average baseball fan and he'll tell you that the Mariners will go as far as Cliff Lee and Felix Hernandez can take them.

But it's behind those two that things become a whole other kind of interesting. Slotting in at #3, right now, is Ryan Rowland-Smith. Then there's Ian Snell. Then there's Jason Vargas. Then, serving as the depth, we find names like Doug Fister, Luke French, Garrett Olson, Nick Hill, and maybe Yusmeiro Petit. The list goes ten names deep, each of them with some argument for why he deserves to break camp with a spot. Each of them but Olson.

Still, the assumption is that, for the time being, the rotation will go RRS/Snell/Vargas. Now, in theory, were the team to go all 2003 on us, we'd see something like the following breakdown:

Felix: 33 starts
Lee: 33
RRS: 32
Snell: 32
Vargas: 32

However, we know that to be unrealistic. Last year's team, for example, gave starts to 12 different pitchers. 11 in 2008. Seven in 2007, but ten in 2006. At some point, the depth is almost certainly going to come into play, and to assume otherwise is to be foolish. So a more probable breakdown would be something like this:

Felix: 32 starts
Lee: 32
RRS: 25
Snell: 25
Vargas: 25
Assorted: 23

The numbers, of course, serving as examples only. The point is, you can't plan on the best-case scenario. You have to assume that, at some point, some guys are going to miss some starts, and you'll have to dip into your reserves. This is something against which teams have to protect themselves.

Here's why this matters: as the Mariners poke around for another starting pitcher, it's tempting to compare different possible names to Jason Vargas. The reality, though, is that a new starting pitcher wouldn't only be taking starts from Jason Vargas unless everybody stayed perfectly healthy and effective. In reality, he would end up taking starts from both Vargas and that pool of other guys currently on the outside looking in.

Let's just go ahead and use the damn Jarrod Washburn example. Let's say the Mariners decide to sign Jarrod Washburn. Washburn would come in and knock Vargas out of the top five. With Jarrod's age and recent history, let's keep things simple and pencil him in for 25 starts. The same 25 starts that we gave to Vargas above.

Now you've taken 25 starts away from Jason Vargas, but at the same time inserted Vargas into the group labeled 'Assorted'. Which means Vargas, as the #6 guy, will get a good number of his starts back, at the expense of guys further down the latter. Guys like, say, Luke French. So in this scenario, you aren't so much replacing Vargas with Washburn as you are replacing some Vargas and some other guys with Washburn.

That matters because it establishes a different baseline. For example (again, just for example), let's say you think Washburn's a two-win guy, Vargas is a one-win guy, and the Assorteds are replacement level. The easy thing to do is to say "adding Washburn adds a win." But if you consider the chaining of the rotation, where Vargas is still able to pick up a number of starts, then, in this example, a more accurate statement would be "adding Washburn adds a win and a half." It changes things. When you're dealing with a starting rotation, a new pitcher doesn't just take a bunch of starts from one guy. He takes a handful of starts from a handful of guys.

Now, this is all much ado about something that, in the end, makes a pretty small difference. And in truth, after Felix/Lee a lot of the projected performances of our starting pitchers kind of run together anyway. But it's still something to keep in mind as we consider the possible benefit of adding another arm. We don't just care about Jason Vargas' projection. We care about everybody's projections, because if the Mariners add an arm, everybody's affected.

Comment 85 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Feel free to delete this comment...

…but the “against” in the parenthetical in the second-to-last paragraph should be “again”. It confused me for a bit is all.
Anywhence, thanks for the article, it illuminated.

by RunningFool on Jan 20, 2010 9:12 PM PST reply actions  

Chaining.

Exactly. Just as it works in the bullpen, it works in the rotation as well. And from the rotation, it can even spill over in the bullpen a bit as the better your SP depth becomes, the better the mop up and long reliever likely are in the pen.

by Matthew on Jan 20, 2010 9:12 PM PST reply actions  

I am in awe of J/M/G's collective blog output

in the past few weeks. You guys are awesome, keep up the great work.

by Omerta on Jan 20, 2010 9:37 PM PST reply actions   2 recs

Is bringing up Sheets off topic (OT)?

I read a bit about it on Prospect Insider and got a bit excited. I’m cruising for a letdown here I imagine.

Gritty... that's the term I think of when I see Jack Wilson play. Gritty

by A Steamy Day in Cleveland on Jan 20, 2010 9:40 PM PST via mobile reply actions  

Get unexcited...

…the better Sheets looks, the more bidders, the higher the price and the less likely the Mariners could field a winning bid.

by rtang on Jan 20, 2010 9:41 PM PST up reply actions  

As Dave tweeted:

A quick note on Sheets – M’s weren’t willing to go past $7.5M guaranteed for Harden. No reason to think they’d offer Sheets more.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 20, 2010 9:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah

Just something to keep in mind. With this many potential suitors, Sheets coming to Seattle would surprise me.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 20, 2010 9:48 PM PST up reply actions  

The problem is that most teams have their rosters almost set by now and have mostly moved the guys they wanted to move already

Not that it couldn’t happen, but the options in trade probably aren’t great/available for the right price right now either.

by OlSalty on Jan 20, 2010 9:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Living here in DC I got to see a bit of him last year

I really have no idea if he’s any good but he seemed fun to watch. I mean, if it’s between “meh” and Jarrod, I’ll take “meh” any day.

by Robert Lintott on Jan 21, 2010 4:33 AM PST up reply actions  

He was just an example I thought of off the top of my head.

Good pitcher without an albatross contract, it shouldn’t take too much to get him.

Hey everyone, Follow me on Twitter!, check out My Baseball Blog, and Last.fm me!

by lailaihei on Jan 21, 2010 6:22 AM PST up reply actions  

I guess Smoltz would be good too

but he’s probably headed back to St. Louis

by Poochie on Jan 20, 2010 10:03 PM PST up reply actions  

As long as he doesn't go to Texas...

Pretty sure that would be terrible.

Carlos Silvelite

by OceanBird on Jan 20, 2010 9:52 PM PST up reply actions  

So would you rather go upside (Bedard) or consistancy (Washburn) to maximize wins?

Lets say 50% of the time Bedard is worth 3 WAR and 50% of the time he isn’t worth anything. Washburn is worth 1.5 WAR all the time. (Just a thought exercise) Both come at the same price. Which do you get for this team?

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2010 10:46 PM PST reply actions  

Washburn.

I know he won’t be as great as he was last year with us, but he has high floor.

by supershane on Jan 20, 2010 10:58 PM PST up reply actions  

True

He was awful in Detroit last year too. I guess I’m hoping that his 2009 Mariners outing wasn’t a fluke. The statistics say it is, but he did add the sinker.

by supershane on Jan 20, 2010 11:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Pretty much nothing changed in 2009.

His BABIP was .242 with Seattle in 2009. There’s your difference.

by Matthew on Jan 20, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Wow

I knew he benefited from our defense, but I didn’t realise that his BABIP was so low. I’m seeing your point know. He really wasn’t that great, and certainly not much better than what Vargas brings to the table.

by supershane on Jan 20, 2010 11:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Ok just to make this easier...I'm taking away the names.

Lets say 50% of the time Pitcher A is worth 3 WAR and 50% of the time he isn’t worth anything. Pitcher B is worth 1.5 WAR all the time. Both come at the same price. Which do you get for this team?

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2010 11:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Bedard would be my pick

but it isn’t an easy choice. Arrgh.

Not encumbered by the thought process.

by Bart's Evil Twin on Jan 20, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Pitcher B

It still averages to a 1 win improvement with either, and you always take the less risky pitcher.

Hey everyone, Follow me on Twitter!, check out My Baseball Blog, and Last.fm me!

by lailaihei on Jan 20, 2010 11:16 PM PST up reply actions  

No it doesn't and no you don't.

The replacement for Pitcher A is not replacement level for that 50% of the time he isn’t worth anything.

by Matthew on Jan 20, 2010 11:20 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Woudn't matter if it's injury or not.

The team has above replacement level pitchers already. If the hypothetical pitcher was healthy or not, but producing 0 WAR, then that pitcher would get replaced.

by Matthew on Jan 20, 2010 11:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Alright, depends on what assumptions you make, I guess.

I was kind of thinking along the lines of if Bedard or whoever Pitcher A is has that kind of upside that he wouldn’t be replaced by Vargas just because he pitches at a replacement level for the first 10 starts or whatever.

Hey everyone, Follow me on Twitter!, check out My Baseball Blog, and Last.fm me!

by lailaihei on Jan 20, 2010 11:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, I would say either keep it fully in the realm of reality or theory.

In theory, he would get replaced. In reality, Bedard wouldn’t be healthy and pitching at a replacement level.

Either way, same conclusion.

by Matthew on Jan 20, 2010 11:29 PM PST up reply actions  

That's true.

In any case, it’s not worth signing real Washburn at all, while Sheets, Bedard, and Smoltz make sense.

Hey everyone, Follow me on Twitter!, check out My Baseball Blog, and Last.fm me!

by lailaihei on Jan 20, 2010 11:31 PM PST up reply actions  

I would take pitcher A,

because you could then plug in a pitcher for the other 50% of the time who can get you additional value over replacement.

But I’m not sure Bedard will be worth that.

by killer_ewok18 on Jan 20, 2010 11:19 PM PST up reply actions  

The answer is Pitcher A and here is my explaination

This team as it stands right now is about 87 wins (something like that).

Adding Pitcher A gets this team up to 90 wins 50% of the time and 87 wins the other 50% of the time.

Adding Pitcher B gets the team up to ~88.5 wins all the time.

The 90th win is worth way more than the 88th win because it increases your chance of playoffs alot. Therefore, the 50% of the time where Pitcher A contributes gives a ton of value.

I’m gonna say based on this logic, Washburn is a crappy idea (among others) and an injury reclaimtion is a great idea.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 20, 2010 11:35 PM PST up reply actions  

The difference is that you get a full year of Washburn at 1.5-2 wins, replacing a maybe 1 WAR pitcher (who is still going to throw some innings)

Whereas Bedard even when pitching hurt was worth ~2 wins in only 83 innings while pitching hurt. Bedard is worth more even if he just pitches half a season, as many times as he has screwed us with his health problems before you have to gamble on a half season of a healthy Bedard over a full season of healthy Washburn.

by OlSalty on Jan 20, 2010 11:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Brain echo.

It’s cause is that the left side of the brain doesn’t know what the right side is doing. The only cure that I know of is beer. Lots of beer.

by ToddK on Jan 21, 2010 11:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Agreed,

but I would guess that the team isn’t likely to sign 2 more SP right now.

Not encumbered by the thought process.

by Bart's Evil Twin on Jan 20, 2010 11:30 PM PST up reply actions  

That woudn't make a lot of sense

since you’d obviously start Bedard and only sub in Washburn if Bedard got injured, but at that point you’d be into the season and the marginal value of Washburn over Vargas/et al diminishes with each passing day.

by Matthew on Jan 20, 2010 11:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Except that Bedard

isn’t likely to be available until the second half of the season. Or am I missing something?

Not encumbered by the thought process.

by Bart's Evil Twin on Jan 20, 2010 11:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Aren't our #4 and #5 respectively both worth only around 1 WAR?

Washburn is a slight upgrade over one of those, then you roll out Snell or someone for half a season at #5 until Bedard is ready to pitch to maximize your win value.

by OlSalty on Jan 20, 2010 11:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I was going to cover that

but I don’t think they’d really be wise to start Washburn over Snell.

by Matthew on Jan 20, 2010 11:40 PM PST up reply actions  

That's a fair point

But there’s also the possibility of moving Washburn around the deadline (when Bedard is presumably coming back) to keep Snell in the rotation as well.

by OlSalty on Jan 20, 2010 11:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Or if Washburn sucks at that point, move him to the pen

All of this depends on getting Washburn for really cheap, though. He just doesn’t seem to have many suitors right now which is the only reason I’m entertaining this possiblity at all.

by OlSalty on Jan 21, 2010 12:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Bedard.

If (when) Bedard isn’t healthy, the person that takes his place in the rotation is ~Washburn. When he’s healthy he’s awesome. If you’re going to spend a large chunk of the remaining payroll space on pitching (and assuming you’re using the money on a FA) I don’t see why Washburn would even be in the discussion.

by Aaron Campeau on Jan 21, 2010 12:03 AM PST up reply actions  

I think Bedard would be a decent choice

I say open up the fifth spot in Spring Training to competition between that grouping of guys(Vargas, Fister, et al). See how well the winner does at the beginning of the year in hopes that one of them figures it out. If it works, then we could have a rotation spot filled cheaply. If it doesn’t work out Bedard would eventually be healthy. Plus it would be insurance in case one of the top four guys gets injured. He still racks up swinging strikes when he does play so I think he’d be a good choice as long as it’s at a decent price.

by Scrupio on Jan 20, 2010 11:13 PM PST reply actions  

It's a bit of a problem isn't it

Building a team around a rotation is a bad idea because pitchers contribute to only one side of the game and the injury risk is tremendous. On the other hand, because of what you describe (ie chaining), the rotation is almost always the easiest way to improve a ball club.

I’m starting to resign myself to the idea that Washburn is headed our way, but I’m still holding on to the hope that the Mets panic and sign him for three years or something.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 21, 2010 8:40 AM PST reply actions  

I want Bedard but...

Can we assume do to the fact that the M’s, to my knowledge, have done nothing with regards to him, that he isn’t in the M’s plans? or is he still a possible piece of the pitching jig-saw puzzle?

by Emperor_Doom on Jan 22, 2010 9:59 AM PST reply actions  

Whoa really?

Is it common for teams to do that with injured FA pitchers? I guess they could just be doing it for continuity of treatment’s sake…

by OlSalty on Jan 22, 2010 11:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Actually I suspect that's part of the CBA

The M’s are the employer of record until some other team signs him and takes over the obligation for his healthcare. If that’s not in the CBA then I would expect it to be pro forma language in every contract. It’s not like these guys are going to be happy to just sign up for COBRA or whatever.

by wandergeist on Jan 22, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Technically

While RRS is #3 on the depth chart, he won’t be taking the 3rd start, right? Wak will stick Snell or some other RH in between Lee and RRS?

by wandergeist on Jan 22, 2010 11:18 AM PST reply actions  

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.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Moar_bacon_small
Everything I Know About Jesus Montero

Recent FanPosts

Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
OTDOD - Early February Edition
Agentejebaox3_small
A Statistical Analysis of Mariners' Fan Support
Small
Who will have a better season?
Claw_small
BA's Top 10 M's Prospects
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Munenori Kawasaki Predictions!!!
Small
The Longevity and Future Success of Felix Hernandez.
Small
The present vs future conundrum

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew