The Ricky Nolasco Case: What Went Wrong?

I wasn’t quite saying his ERA happened to him. I was saying (and I’m not completely sure whether or not this is different) that that production happened, stated in part by his ERA, in connection with him. That is, when he pitched, runs were scored at a rate of 2.64 runs per nine innings, regardless of whether or not he pitched at a level that should have resulted in more runs scored per nine innings (can’t find xFIP, etc., for his ’09 with Seattle).

So as far as predicting his future performance and analyzing his past performance, it’s important to pay attention to DIPS. But as far as thinking towards the improvement of the rotation next year, it seems that we can’t write off Wash’s production as luck and quote his various DIPS to prove that and say that Cliff Lee would basically be an improvement regardless, as if in a vacuum. Cliff Lee could produce at a rate such that, according to his DIPS, runs are scored at a rate of 2.64 runs per nine innings (resulting in a damn sight lower ERA than Wash put up), and the result wouldn’t be an improvement on what happened when Washburn pitched, correct?

Now Lee might be around longer and might be more reliable and I’d sure as he’ll rather have him in the playoffs. I’m not trying to question who is the better pitcher. Just had to make that clear. If I’m wrong about all this or missing something, please let me know.

But how exactly do you quantify “better” here? What exactly does it mean? Does it mean he will achieve better results? Because the end result is all that matters. Winning is what really counts. If one compares a pitcher who consistently pitches 7 innings of 4-6 hit/2-3 run ball that is entirely based on luck (lots of fly balls to the warning track, lots of gappers caught by omnipresent centerfielders, hard shots up the middle speared by terrific defense shortstops, etc) with a pitcher who consistently pitches 7 innings of 4-6 hit/2-3 run ball that is entirely based on talent (weak fly balls, slow grounders, lots of strikeouts, etc), the end result is the same for the team.

Now, one situation is clearly more likely to be repeatable, and there’s no question on which pitcher one would want to bank for the future. But just the same, the outcome of the second performance, objectively, in and of itself, is not inherently “better” than the outcome of the first. Statistically, the first will look prettier, particularly because it is more reliable, and for that reason, it is certainly preferable (and perhaps because the defense doesn’t have to work as hard). But it is not “better”. Both performances are quite likely achieve the same (desired) result—a win.

Understand what I mean here. I’m not saying that the M’s could replace Lee with Washburn in the rotation this year and be just as well off. Not even close. I am saying that when Washburn pitched last year, despite all of the luck and lack of skill on his part, the end result was that, on average, 2.64 runs/nine innings were allowed. That is good. When Cliff Lee pitches this year, if he consistently pitches 7 innings and, by his own talent as a pitcher, allows only an average of 2.64 runs/nine innings, his stats that matter will be better, he’ll be more reliable, and the Mariners’ defense won’t feel so taken advantage of, but will the Mariners be better off this year (compared to last year) when all’s said and done?

Illustration:

We’ll set “x” = outcome of Washburn’s starts with Mariners in ’09

“x” is composed of the following…

“a” = Skill
“b” = Luck
“c” = Defense

In saying that Cliff Lee will be “an improvement” on Washburn, we are making the assertion that the outcome of Lee’s starts with Mariners in ’10 (call it “y”) will be greater than “x”. So we are making the assertion that “y > x”.

Now if this is true, then that of which “y” is composed must be greater than that of which “x” is composed. Is this the case? Well, Cliff Lee is a lot more skilled than Washburn, so yes, in “y”, “a” is greater than it is in “x”. But by nature of the relationships between “a” and “b” and “a” and “c”, as “a” increases, “b” decreases, and as “a” increases, “c” also decreases. So because Lee is a much more skilled pitcher, he makes much less use of luck than does Washburn, and for the same reason, terrific defense has much less of an impact on the overall result of his performance.

When comparing “x” and “y”, then, we can see that, though one aspect of “y” is greater than “x”, other aspects are likely to be less.

So the question is, will “y > x”?

I think he’s fine. I just wanted to point out that it wasnt all bad luck (which there was a little of, based on his higher BABip with men on) but some of it seemed to be tied ti his own performance in those situations.