OT: So... Shohei Ohtani is good at baseball after all
Hit his 3rd homer in his 3rd straight game tonight.
Pitches Sunday against the As.
If this kid wins 15 games with an ERA around 3 and bats .280 hitting 20 HRs, is that MVP worthy?
Kid is making those spring training haters eat their words and well, is really exciting to watch!
yes. when was the last time that happened? 19th century?
uhhh... George Herman Ruth
There's that, of course, but in the generations that the majority of this blog covers, I can't think of too many pitchers that were tough outs at least on occasion, and even then, their stats are easilt dwarfed by their position-playing contemporaries for the most part. Carlos Zambrano comes to mind, as does Fernando Valenzuela, Adam Wainwright, Bob Forsch, Mike Hampton and some others, but definitely no Ruthian numbers in that group. Just a few pitchers that did OK at the plate as pitchers go.
MadBum could probably do decently if he DH'd daily like Ohtani is doing. His average would be low (.200 maybe) but he'd hit quite a few dingers.
2014 - 66 AB: 4 HR and .258 average
2015 - 77 AB: 5 HR and .247 average
2016 - 86 AB: 3 HR and .186 average
2017 - 34 AB: 3 HR and .208 average
That's 15 home runs in 263 at bats; about half as many at bats as a full time position player.
He gets up there and swings hard on every pitch; just like Bryce Harper. I think he could hang around as a DH, but I'm not sure if could play a position occasionally.
He could not hang around as a DH.
15 homers in 264 ABs playing half your games in San Fran is impressive. Hitting over .200 while only batting every 5th day speaks to his ability. Get him regular ABs in a hitter's park and he would be one of the better DHs.
*might be
There, I fixed your over-assuredness for you.
Instead of fixing someone else's post, maybe adjust your expectations of a message board. Every statement anyone can make on this matter is a prognostication of the future. "Might be" should always be assumed and is completely unnecessary in this context.
Having said that, I can see what they are saying. Stating that anyone (Pujols, Morales, Ramirez) is a good DH is not an unreasonable statement and they are all players whose half-year stats would be pretty close to .250+ and 15-20 HRs. Not elite, but good.
Most pitchers look like pitchers when they try to hit. MadBum looks like a hitter. In fact, when he is in the lineup he looks like one of their better hitters.
He has a career K-rate of 35% and a career slash line of .185/.232/.322.
He couldn't be a DH.
as a DH since he makes too much money as a pitcher!
I say "he could..." in part because of the poor DH numbers I've seen on some teams over the years.
Ruth's home run numbers moved up as soon as he started weaning off pitching, which happened when he went to New York. By the time he was putting up actually big hitting numbers, he'd moved to the field full time.
Though this also coincided with the end of the dead ball era.
Per Wikipedia, by 1921, offenses were scoring 40% more runs and hitting four times as many home runs as they had in 1918.
Well, that's one part of it. The other part of it is as he pitched less, Ruth's games-played went up, his ABs went up, etc. He didn't play even close to every day until his last year in Boston.
Long story short, what we're talking about here is nothing akin to Ruth in the lineup on non-pitching days and hitting home runs at a steady clip. Because he never really did that, whether or not it was the dead-ball era.
Going to be a stud. He's only 23 years old.
Doubt he'll get to 15 wins because he's only going to pitch once a week but I could see him getting 10 (maybe 12) wins.
It's not like he's pitching any less than any other member of a 5-man rotation. He'll get roughly 30 starts. If he pitches well but doesn't get 15 wins it won't be due to his frequency of starts, it'll be because the Angels have a shitty bullpen.
The Angels are experimenting with a six man rotation, so he is pitching less than other starters.
I did not realize that, thank you for the correction. Then yes, 15 wins would seem difficult to reach if he's only going to get 25 or so starts.
Who is the sixth, because their club page only lists five starters?
- Garrett Richards
- Tyler Skaggs
- Parker Bridwell (Matt Shoemaker on DL)
- Shohei Ohtani
- JC Ramirez
Perhaps they will go to a six-man rotation when Andrew Heaney comes off the DL next week.
https://www.mlb.com/news/why-the-angels-6-man-rotation-wont-last/c-2669…
We'll see how long it last, but it is what they've stated they want to try.
Either way, Ohtanis starts and IP will be limited this year. They may not stick with the six man for long, or even never use it due to injuries, but they'll push some starts for him back and give him extra rest when they can, even more so if he continues to mash.
Incredibly impressive start. I’m looking forward to when he visits Seattle for the first time. With our large Japanese-American population, Ichiro’s return, and Ohtani-mania I’ll bet half the crowd are waving Japanese flags. If/when Ohtani pitches to Ichiro people will lose their minds.
The few times I saw Ohtani swing it reminded me of Ichiro. Ohtani is a bigger man and the Angels lowered the right field fence height in half, so I don't think 25 homers is out of the question. The question is will he get enough ABs. I think they plan to rest him the day before he pitches and DH for him when he pitches. He was hitting 8th when I saw him in the lineup. I don't think 450 ABs gives him enough opportunities to put up great offensive numbers, but he is also making 25 starts. It's really hard to evaluate how valuable he is.
As he gets more mature, I wonder if the Angels will put him in the pen during the week. He starts on Sundays. Could he give them an inning or 2 on Wednesday or Thursday?
To baseball this year but this may get me back into the fold. He’s a positional player and a pitcher? That’s some rare air.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got an occasional start in the outfield.
I would be. They are being extra cautious with him. He’s only DH’ing and the current plan is for him to not hit a day before or after his turn in the rotation.
His first trip through the league is the easiest. Like other sports, once teams have built enough film on him, he may not do as well. Until then enjoy the ride.
Pitcher wins are a stupid stat.
But everyone has an opinion. Very good barometer of a pitcher giving his team a chance to win. Very good barometer of innings pitched which helps a team's overall pitching staff.
you rather have a pitcher who wins 20 games with 5+ ERA over a pitcher who wins 8 games with 1.5 ERA?
Give me a that list of 20 game winners with a 5.00+ ERA.
Pitchers wins is am imperfect stat and certainly involves more than just the pitcher. However, you still rarely see a bad pitcher rack up a ton of wins.
ERA is far from a perfect stat either if you want to start nitpicking pitcher stats
Bobo Newsom: 20 with 5.07 ERA
Ray Kremer: 20 with 5.02 ERA
Pitchers with 20+ wins and over 4 ERA
Vern Kennedy: 21 with 4.63
George Earnshaw: 22 4.44
Rick Helling 20 4.41
Lefty Gomez: 24 4.21
Wes Ferrell 20 4.19
Tim Hudson 20 4.14
David Wells: 20 4.11
Jim Merritt 20 4.08
Montie Weaver 22 4.08
George Uhle 22 4.08
Lew Burdette 21 4.07
Billy Hoeft 20 4.06
Jaack Morris 21 4.04
Andy Pettitte 21 4.02
Murray Dickson 20 4.02
Win is a bad and overrated stats
This is an accurate list but it's a little misleading. The two guys over 5.00 both played 80 years ago with four man (or fewer) rotations. I think the takeaway is that in the modern game it's effectively impossible to win 20 games with even a 4.00 ERA...it looks like the last season was Pettitte in 2003.
I agree that wins are a bad stat on their own, but at some point they become directionally accurate and as a time series are relatively indicative of talent.
Well if we're speaking in hindsight where we know the results then yes I'll have the guy who won more games regardless of individual performance
Would you rather have a QB who won 7 Superbowls with a completion percentage of 52%, or a QB who wins 2 Superbowls with a completion percentage of 72%?
We just want any QB to win a Super Bowl.
has never happened and two, what I put out has happened in the past in the MLB.
QB who completed 52% of his passes all had losing record. Not the same comparison
Last year Pitcher A tied the major league lead with 18 wins. He also had a 4.16 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, and 134 Ks in 179.2 innings.
Pitcher B had 16 wins. He also had a 2.51 ERA, 0.90 WHIP, and 268 Ks in 200.2 innings.
Pitcher A is Jason Vargas. Pitcher B is Max Scherzer. Is there any argument, besides wins, that Vargas can touch Max Scherzer?
Yes I realize that’s a cherry-picked example but my point is we have much better ways to quantify a pitcher’s value than wins.
Yeah, because wins are depedent on factors a pitcher can't control. There's run support--can the hitters on his own team score runs or does the pitcher take losses or no-decisions because they stink? Is the pitcher surrounded by crappy fielders who cause unearned runs that lead to losses, no-decisions, or effective pitchers being removed from the game anyway? That's why ERA and K/BB are far better measures of pitcher effectiveness than wins. After all, would you rather have Eli Manning or Dan Marino as your qb (and I ask this as a life-long Giant fan)?
When there is any discussion about who are the best pitchers in baseball, Clayton Kershaw will be mentioned.
If you look at 95% of his statistics, he clearly deserves to be at the top of any list of current pitchers.
Yet, in 3 of his last 4 seasons, Kershaw has failed to record even 30 starts. One can assume that for 5-10 starts in those seasons, the Dodgers are putting in a replacement level starter.
When evaluating Kershaw, should this could against him? If so, how much?
Advanced stats guys don’t care about durability, so they would say it doesn’t matter at all.
This is a good point. I guess innings pitched and how late you go into a game are stats managers etc look at but fans not as much.
That most advanced stats guys do not comprehend.
If you had a MLB manager as your uncle, he could get you 600 ABs merely by writing your name in the lineup every day.
This same Uncle can’t do a thing to get you 200 IP. Sure, he could start you 50 times, but you still have to average 4 IP/start on 50 starts to hit 200.
Innings pitched is the most undervalued stat in all of sports, in my opinion - both by stats guys and fans.
Managers rarely let pitchers go deep because of specialization and the batters are too good the 3rd time around. I wouldn't use it against Kershaw.
I am holding the fact he has basically averaged missing a month of games each of the last four seasons against him.
WAR is essentially a counting stat, so yes that absolutely takes into account durability.
Seriously, let’s create statistical unlikelihoods to make straw man arguments to what someone else said. Just because he didn’t address ERA as important it does not mean he doesn’t believe it is a barometer.
But yes, I will take a pitcher who wins 20 games. I will take 5 of them and give two sheets if our ERA is over 9 because that means we have 100 win playoff team.
No, a good barometer of giving your team a chance to win is ERA. It is the pitchers job to prevent the opposing team from scoring as many runs as possible. Wins are completely predicated on your team’s ability to outscore the opposing team, which the pitcher has no control over. A pitcher on a bad offensive team can have a very low ERA while a pitcher on a great offensive team can have a high ERA and have a lot of wins because his team scores a lot of runs.
The pitcher with the lower ERA is obviously better, but the wins won’t reflect that due to his team’s inability to put up runs.
And a good pitcher who wins games with a high ERA may pitch in a hitter’s park (Coors) or be on a bad defensive team. Or the pitcher may have a bad pitching coaching staff and/or catcher.
One doesn’t win games simply by keeping one’s ERA low. It helps, duh, but this argument ignores results.
But just to add things to the forum, do not discount quality starts!