Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
...is a new Jay.

Okay, okay, caveat time: he's actually seventh on the list (click on FB% to sort) of least frequent fastball-throwers, but two of the guys ahead of him are knucklers, and the other four all jump above our guy when you take their cutters into account.

So who am I talking about? If you guessed Octavio Dotel, you're WAY wrong. That dude throws his fastball over 80% of the time - one of the highest in the game, actually.

The answer is Carlos Villanueva, who's gotta have the most balanced four-pitch repertoire in baseball - at least in how he uses it, not necessarily based on effectiveness. Anyway, Villanueva throws his fastball 29% of the time and that's actually his most used pitch: he also features a change-up (26.6%), a slider (24%) and a curveball (20.4%). Talk about mixing and matching.

Carlos has always had a balanced repertoire, but it's become more balanced over time. In 2006, his rookie year, and 2007, he threw his fastball almost half the time, with the change-up his primary out pitch.. The next two years he took it down below 40% and mostly started using his slider more. Last year another 10% drop in fastball usage resulted in the curve getting up over 20%.

So, the natural question: is his stuff any good? Well, the short answer is it's hard to tell given the small sample size, him being a reliever, and being shuttled in and out of the rotation probably had some effect on how he used his pitches. But here's what the data says:

Except for during his rookie year, Villanueva's fastball has always been a below average pitch, and it was more than ever last year (-2.33 R/100 pitches), so good on him for recognizing this fact and gradually cutting down. His change-up and slider have almost always been above average. The curve has been up and down, but last year it was his best pitch (2.06 R/100), explaining its increased usage.

(By the way, the best off-speed pitches are usually worth about 3 R/100 above average - Marcum's change-up was 3.35 last year, second only to King Felix.)

Villanueva had an excellent xFIP of 3.39 last year, and from the data it seems like it may be partially explainable by Carlos' improved use of his repertoire (and mostly explainable by random reliever year-to-year variance, of course). I haven't studied pitch values enough to know if this kind of behaviour is sustainable on a year-to-year basis, but from what I can see in the number it looks like a pretty nice pick-up by AA.

(And yes, I know the trade is old news, but we've gotta talk about something in the dreary post-FA pre-ST wasteland.)


2010's Most Infrequent Thrower of Fastballs | 49 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Richard S.S. - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 07:01 AM EST (#228951) #
I recall reading a post that broke down Carlos Villanueva's pitch selection.   Your mission is to find that post.   (Hint: the fastball is his worst pitch).
uglyone - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 10:26 AM EST (#228958) #
I actually think we have a pretty good sample size to work off of with Carlos' career relief split:


C.Villanueva (26): 275.1ip, 9.2k/9, 3.2bb/9, 2.9k/bb, 1.1hr/9, .238avg, .297babip, 1.23whip, 4.09era, 3.89fip, 3.79xfip

and then last year:

C.Villanueva (26): 52.2ip, 11.5k/9, 3.8bb/9, 3.1k/bb, 1.2hr/9, .244avg, .335babip, 1.33whip, 4.61era, 3.74fip, 3.39xfip


He had a higher than normal babip last year which explains the higher era, but IMO those are flat out good numbers, and I have plenty of faith in this guy to be a very solid reliever for us.
christaylor - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 12:39 PM EST (#228964) #
Off topic... but baseball prospectus just put out their top 11 list of Jays prospects. Here is the list:

Five-Star Prospects
1. Kyle Drabek, RHP
2. J.P. Arencibia, C
Four-Star Prospects
3. Brett Lawrie, 2B
Three-Star Prospects
4. Travis d'Arnaud, C
5. Deck McGuire, RHP
6. Carlos Perez, C
7. Adeiny Hechavarria, SS
8. Zach Stewart, RHP
9. Anthony Gose, CF
10. Aaron Sanchez, RHP
11. Asher Wojciechowski, RHP
92-93 - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 01:41 PM EST (#228967) #
I really don't get how a player with no plate discipline and questionable defense can be a 5-star prospect. For where the Blue Jays are right now in the process, I wouldn't trade any other prospect on that list for Arencibia. And there's at least 3-5 players not on the list I'd say the same about.

I hope JPA proves me dead wrong and goes on to a consistent pre-FA career, but I really question his value when I read stories like Russell Martin being offered to catch in Toronto 4 days a week. Such a positive Baseball Prospectus outlook is good for his value as an asset though.
Gerry - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 01:41 PM EST (#228968) #

Five-Star Prospects
1. Kyle Drabek, RHP
2. J.P. Arencibia, C
Four-Star Prospects
3. Brett Lawrie, 2B
Three-Star Prospects
4. Travis d'Arnaud, C
5. Deck McGuire, RHP
6. Carlos Perez, C
7. Adeiny Hechavarria, SS
8. Zach Stewart, RHP
9. Anthony Gose, CF
10. Aaron Sanchez, RHP
11. Asher Wojciechowski, RHP

The Batters Box minor league crew had all of these players, except Lawrie, in their top 14.  The four players who ranked higher on Da Box were Henderson Alvarez; AJ Jimenez; Eric Thames and Jake Marisnick.  BP had Jimenez as a sleeper I believe, and the other three were listed in BP's "nine more" category.

 

Gerry - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 01:47 PM EST (#228969) #

The Twitter rumour du jour is that Dirk Hayhurst is signing with the Rays.

BP said that JPA was a 5 star because of his offensive/power potential.  They said it is hard to find that in a catcher.  Position scarcity is another way to put it.

Gerry - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 01:54 PM EST (#228970) #

The Jays have eleven position players with semi-guaranteed spots on the 2011 team.  They need a third baseman or backup infielder and a DH or backup outfielder.  This explains their interest in Eric Chavez and Johnny Damon.  And yesterday we heard that Brett Lawrie is being tried at third by the Blue Jays.  I heard from an internal source that the Jays were happy with his work there based on what they saw at the Toronto mini-camp.  If the Jays do not sign Eric Chavez then Brett Lawrie would have an outside chance to make the Jays out of spring training as their third baseman.  I think the more likely scenario is that he goes to Las Vegas for a month or two of work there to get used to the position.

We have also heard that Jose Bautista would prefer to stay in the outfield but the Jays could ask him to cover third for that month or two until Lawrie is ready.

John Northey - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 02:33 PM EST (#228971) #
Depending on contract (which I'd assume will be inexpensive) I could easily see Chavez being signed to cover April/May at 3B while Lawrie is in AAA (gives Jays an extra year of his production pre-free agency) then in June, if Lawrie is ready, you release one of Chavez or EE if everyone is healthy. If Chavez and EE are both producing, then you trade one of them for whatever you can get. If Lawrie isn't producing you keep both Chavez & EE.

If Bautista is put at 3B instead then you know Chavez wasn't ready and that the Jays feel Lawrie is ready but want to save service time.
Mike Green - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 02:39 PM EST (#228972) #
Even that would be a pretty rushed timetable for Lawrie.  He hit very well in double A at age 20, but he didn't overwhelm the league like Vladdy or Cabrera did.  And he is being asked to make his second position change.  Wouldn't it make sense from the team's perspective to let him have another full year in the minors to consolidate his offensive game (i.e. add more power) and to learn the new position?
christaylor - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 02:50 PM EST (#228974) #
I wonder -- if the rumors about Lawrie are true, it might be worthwhile to promote him to the majors quickly. If he fails, he's humbled and his issues with being headstrong may fade, if he succeeds, he succeeds. Either way, he won't be sulking around the minors thinking "I'm too good for this."
China fan - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 02:57 PM EST (#228976) #

92-93,  I saw that story about Russell Martin, and it's an intriguing one.  He says the Jays wanted him to catch 4 days a week.  And the Jays offered him as much money as the Yanks did.  It really does seem, as we surmised last August and September, that Anthopolous is not sold on JPA as the everyday catcher for 2011.  So, what now?  From what we know of Anthopolous, it would be very unlike him to simply shrug his shoulders and accept JPA as the everyday catcher, just because he couldn't land Russell Martin.  AA is not the shrugging, fatalistic, c'est-la-vie type of GM.  If one avenue doesn't work, he keeps trying other avenues until he gets what he wants.  In view of all this, isn't it possible that AA is still looking for a veteran catcher to ensure that the Jays are not "left naked" at the catching position in 2011?   If the free-agent ranks are depleted by now, might he be looking for a cheap veteran catcher in the trade market?

Gerry - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 03:06 PM EST (#228977) #

the free-agent ranks are depleted by now, might he be looking for a cheap veteran catcher in the trade market?

A cheap veteran who is better than Jose Molina you mean.  Jose meets your description.

Mylegacy - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 03:11 PM EST (#228979) #
From KLAW -

Dan (NYC)

How would you rank the following 3 pitchers over the next 3-5 years Brandon Morrow, Jaime Garcia, and Gavin Floyd?

Klaw  (1:45 PM)

Morrow's the one guy in that mix with #1 starter potential.



China fan - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 03:15 PM EST (#228980) #

...A cheap veteran who is better than Jose Molina you mean....

Goes without saying, doesn't it?  

Anthopolous tried mightily to sign Russell Martin.  Since that didn't work, he'll keep trying to find someone of Russell Martin calibre.  Jose Molina clearly is not of that calibre.

Mylegacy - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 03:16 PM EST (#228981) #
More KLAW -

Luke (Dallas)

How does Jhoulys Chacin rate against Morrow?

Klaw  (1:48 PM)

I like Chacin a lot but he doesn't have anywhere near Morrow's pure stuff. Hard to see Chacin as the best pitcher in any decent rotation.



Gerry - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 04:29 PM EST (#228983) #

From Baseball America...

The Blue Jays have agreed to terms with 16-year-old Dominican lefthander Jairo Labour for $350,000.

Labour, who is 6-foot-4, 185 pounds, became eligible to sign when the 2010 international signing period opened on July 2, but he developed into a better prospect later and has run his fastball up to 92 mph. Labour, who is from Azua, is a good athlete with a solid delivery and feel for spinning a breaking ball.

 

Mike Green - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 04:38 PM EST (#228984) #
A 6'4", 185 lefty with a 92 mph fastball at 16 years old?  Nice.  We'll talk in 2014.
Mick Doherty - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 04:49 PM EST (#228985) #

Mike, make that 2017. Let the kid get into his 20s!

So he would have been born in ... um, 1995? I think I'm going to be ill.

rtcaino - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 05:49 PM EST (#228988) #
And he is being asked to make his second position change.

Does this actually have an effect?
cybercavalier - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 05:58 PM EST (#228990) #
Re China fan:

AA seems to be looking for a catcher of Martin's calibre but what abilities classifies Martin's calibre? Also, given Martin's preference of New York to Toronto, would a catcher of the same calibre come to Toronto then, especially given the scarcity of ML catching resources ? Obviously, AA is also not giving up too much from the farm for Martin's calibre.


cybercavalier - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 06:05 PM EST (#228991) #
Re T.J.Caino:

Based on his BbRef profile, Lawrie has not made a position change while playing second base, even though he is promoted as capable of playing right field, infield and catching. In the end is his athleticism capable of multiple positiion change ? Can he be compared to Craig Biggio, who also played second base, the out field and catching ?

sam - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 07:18 PM EST (#228993) #
The signing of Labour is a very good indicator of the Jays new commitment to scouting. Labour, who was able to sign as of July 2 didn't sign because he had handlers who wanted more money but because he simply wasn't a very good prospect, but in the past couple months he put it all together to become quite the prospect. The Jays obviously had the resources to follow him and track his progress accordingly. Usually teams now are concentrating on next years crop, the Jays have the resources to do both. Also, Cardona must be quite the prospect if he got 2.8 and this guy with very similar tools it sounds like got 350K.
TamRa - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 08:31 PM EST (#228998) #
I've been thinking for some time that if you get Chavez either on a make-good minor league deal (which you might not if there is competition) or a low-base with a relatively generous games-played incentive, it's absolutely perfect as a bridge to Lawrie.

If Chavez contends for comeback player of the year, even tempts you to extend him, then lawrie can spend the year at AAA and even be an option to replace Bautista in 2012 if/when he leaves.

If Chavez does well but gets hurt again, he buys time and if Lawrie seems ready when that happens then promote him and if not you go to an emergency play with Bautista (or plan C - EE)

If Chavez struggles and Lawrie seems ready, release Chavez and cal the kid

If Chavez can't make it out of ST, you can see if you think Lawrie can make the jump and if not, you are  no worse off than you are if you never sign Chavez in the first place.

The only way I don't sign Chavez is if it's very clear from the workouts that he is very very done.

cybercavalier - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 08:56 PM EST (#228999) #
The only way I don't sign Chavez is if it's very clear from the workouts that he is very very done.

I agree with you totally. In a nutshell, getting Chavez into a contract enormously outweighs wasting the contract money if he hurts himself again. However, I feel that few people thinks Lawrie is ready for ML. What is the reasoning behind such mindset? May be scouting reports, or sources inside the organiztion etc..
92-93 - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 08:58 PM EST (#229000) #
If we're so desperate for a guy who can play 3B (and I'm still not sure why they'd play Chavez > EE at 3B), the FA market has some decent roster fillers left - guys like Nick Punto, Felipe Lopez, Pedro Feliz...
TamRa - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 09:05 PM EST (#229001) #
Chavez wouldn't have to be much t be better than those guys - certainly not the man he used to be.

As for EE - the team has already decided (assuming their honesty) that they are not gonna be able to fix his shortcomings on defense. He's not a part of the conversation at all.

You seem to be reacting as if it's a given Chavez can't field and can't hit - if that is true then they simply won't sing him, at least not to a major league deal. all this speculation proceeds from the assumption that IF he is signed that can be taken as solid evidence the team thinks he has something better to offer than the other options.

It's not like Lopez or Feliz are sifting through a stack of tempting offers.

cybercavalier - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 09:10 PM EST (#229002) #
92-93, we are not desperate but IMO we have a luxury at 3B (JBau, EE) to take chance with Chavez. So it is the opposite of your understanding. However, given the ample supply of 3B on the FA market, a sound reasoning is to invest when the perceived market value at 3B is low, and sell or keep them (for example, trading Chavez if he can return to near his All-star level). The Jays have succeeded in getting greater values in return out of Alex Gonzalez II (for Yunel Escobar), John Buck (his performace and all star presence),  JBau (50sHR etc.) and Brandon League (Morrow).
aaforpm - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 10:08 PM EST (#229004) #
Love the fact that we continue to sign international free agents - I was worried Texas was the only team still signing guys (I think the picked up something like 4 young shortstops).  Hope this continues with this year's crop and next year's class.  I also hope they do not renegotiate the CBA by adding a truly international draft which would no longer allow AA to game the system by taking risks on international FAs who (albeit risky) do not cost us draft picks and currently provide the team with a large pool of talent that's not limited in the same way as the draft (meaning we can go after anyone and not just the guys remaining when our draft choice comes up)

Also, I wanted to comment on the fact that some of the comments on this blog and other websites suggest that the Jays simply sign Bautista to a 3 year $30 mil contract extension: I'm sure that this is something that AA would look at if he though it was a possibility but I have a feeling that Jose has enough faith in his abilities to hold out and to try to prove himself for another season (or 1/2 season), knowing that if he can prove that he is a 350 OBP guy that's going to hit 30+ homers for the next 3 years then some stupid GM will give him a 6 or 7 year deal for $100+ mil so he can become a burdensome contract in 2014 and beyond....it just won't be AA




brent - Thursday, January 20 2011 @ 10:41 PM EST (#229005) #
GM AA has spoken before about having 5 #2 starters in the rotation. I wonder if he is going to apply that kind of philosophy to the bullpen too. It should be interesting to watch. It also means that the Jays should be blown out less often this coming year.
greenfrog - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 08:38 AM EST (#229006) #
Then there are the Phillies, whose philosophical preference is to have two #1 starters, two strong #2 starters, and a #4/5. A chacun ses gouts.

MatO - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 10:25 AM EST (#229007) #

The Blue Jays have agreed to terms with 16-year-old Dominican lefthander Jairo Labour for $350,000

I wonder if he has a brother named Manuel.

CeeBee - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 10:42 AM EST (#229008) #
So I guess if he pitches on the first Monday in September we can call it Labour day?
Matthew E - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 10:44 AM EST (#229009) #
Nice try, CeeBee, but I think we have to give the prize to MatO.
bpoz - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 10:50 AM EST (#229010) #
Who are our #2 type starters for 2011. Rickey with 200IP and sub 4.00ERA is a #2 ? But nobody else yet. Is that a reasonable definition or do we have to discuss this definition taking ballpark,league, division etc... to judge our team. Then I/we can guess how good we are.
Ishai - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 10:52 AM EST (#229011) #
And these puns are only possible if he plays in Canada. On any team but the Blue Jays (any American team) his name would be just another French Colonialist name to be mispronounced on principle.

I love superfluouuuuus U's.

bpoz - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 10:59 AM EST (#229012) #
Sam... Cardona & Labour are 2 years younger than A Sanchez and Noah Syndergaard. I hope they are as good prospects.

Thanks everyone for these signing updates.
John Northey - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 11:28 AM EST (#229013) #
At times Cecil and Morrow have been called potential #1's, so I think they could easily become #2's.

Ouch, the bad puns that are coming to mind as I type that out...must...resist...temptation...
Dave Rutt - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 11:45 AM EST (#229015) #
Nice try, CeeBee, but I think we have to give the prize to MatO.

Agreed - I'm lucky I hadn't opened my coffee yet because I just gave a hearty, potentially coffee-spitting laugh, the kind that would bring my roommate out to ask what's up were he home.
Matthew E - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 11:47 AM EST (#229016) #
bpoz: There's really no such thing as a #2 starter. There's no consensus definition of what that would be (although I'm sure there's no shortage of opinions). So, let's use the following descriptions, which I am making as loose as possible:

#1 starter - a pitcher you could predict, before the season starts, might win the Cy Young this year
#2 starter - a pitcher you probably wouldn't predict for the Cy Young but might make an All-Star team if he has a normal good year
#3 starter - a pitcher who probably isn't going to make an All-Star team but you're not worried that he's going to get knocked out of the rotation
#4 starter - a pitcher who could be okay but could also get knocked out of the rotation
#5 starter - a pitcher who's a plausible starter but you're not so impressed by him that you won't shuffle him back to the bullpen or the minors whenever you feel like it

Is that loose enough? Can anyone make it looser?

Using the list above, I'd put Romero, Morrow, and Cecil as #2 starters, and Romero and Morrow could move up. The Jays' other candidates are currently #4, but most of 'em could also move up.

92-93 - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 11:54 AM EST (#229017) #
I like your categories a lot Matthew, but there's still a gray area between #1 and #2 - I'd perhaps change the wording in #1 to WOULD predict, not COULD predict. Otherwise Morrow is already a #1 under those guidelines (although I don't think even with it being "could" that Romero would list there).

It's funny how prospects typically have ace/#1 or #3 potential, but rarely #2.
pubster - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 12:43 PM EST (#229019) #
I think its best to say that the top 30 starting pitchers in baseball are number 1s.

The next 30 are number 2s....and so on.

So can the Jays throw out 5 of the top 60 starting pitchers in baseball?

I think Morrow, Romero and Marcum were all top 60 last year. Minus Marcum, maybe Cecil can make that jump this year. Drabek should be top 60 when all is said and done.

John Northey - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 12:44 PM EST (#229020) #
An exercise I like to do is to figure out ERA+ for the #1/2/3/4/5 slots in the rotation at the end, if starts were assigned based on ERA+ (33 starts for #1/2, 32 for the rest). IE: Shawn Hill's 4 starts count as part of #1 due to his 161 ERA+, then Marcum counts for 29 with his 114.

So in 2010...
#1) Hill (4) & Marcum (29) = ERA+ 120
#2) Marcum (2) & Romero (31) = ERA+ 111
#3) Romero (1) & Cecil (28) & Morrow (3) = ERA+ 95
#4) Morrow (23) & Drabek (3) & Rzepczynski (12) = ERA+ 87
#5) Rzepczynski (6) & Mills (3) & Litsch (9) & Tallet (5) & Eveland (9) = ERA+ 69

Interesting eh? If we look at 2009 we get...
158/108/87/79/67

For comparison 1985 & 1992 & 1993...
1985: 173/145/121/113/86
1992: 157/119/103/89/71
1993: 112/109/98/88/69

So in summary...
1985: 173/145/121/113/86 (99 wins)
1992: 157/119/103/89/71 (WS)
1993: 112/109/98/88/69 (WS)
2009: 158/108/87/79/67 (Halladay)
2010: 120/111/95/87/69 (last year)

A lot more similar than I expected outside of that amazing 1985 when the 3rd slot was better than last years #1 slot. Yet even that year the 'extra' 32 starts were pretty poor (86 ERA+). Also makes 1993 all the more amazing, just the big 2 slots were above league average for ERA+ (Hentgen/Guzman).
Mike Green - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 12:52 PM EST (#229021) #
I have no problem with the categories, although the Cy Young voting has often resulted in pitchers who were not by anyone's understanding #1s winning.  From 79-83, the AL winners were in order Flanagan, Stone, Fingers, Vukovich and Hoyt.  Younger readers might not know any of 'em except Rollie Fingers. 

Another way of attempting to delineate it would be something like this:

#1 starters- somebody who at the start of the season can reasonably be expected to be among the top 10 (top 5?) starters in the league
#2 starters- somebody who at the start of the season can reasonably be expected to be among the top 30, but not among the top 10 (top 5?) starters in the league
#3 starters- somebody who at the start of the season can reasonably be expected to be among the top 60, but not among the top 30 starters in the league
#4 starters- somebody who at the start of the season cannot reasonably be expected to be among the top 60 starters in the league, but can be expected to be good enough to be given at least 30 starts, if healthy, on an average pitching team
#5 starters- somebody who at the start of the season, who will continue to receive regular work in an average rotation, although not likely 30 starts if he performs to expectations and is healthy

So, if you look at the American League for 2011, your clear #1s would be Hernandez, Verlander, Sabathia and then depending on whether you go with 5 or 10, arguments about Price, Lester, Liriano and a couple of others. 

The tough part is predicting workload.  If Brett Cecil throws 200 innings at the same level of performance as he showed last year and consistent with his minor league records, he's a #2.  If Zep throws 200 innings at the same level of performance as his career major league record and consistent with his minor league records, he's a borderline 2.  For most pitchers, we can only give a zone and so the categories particularly between 2 and 3 are very fluid.  Worse yet for the labelling, it would not take much of a step forward for Cecil or Zep to be one of the top 10 pitchers in the league.  200 innings with an ERA and FIP of 3.4 is well within what they are capable of accomplishing; of course, they are equally well capable of throwing 150 innings with an ERA and FIP of 4.5. 

For these reasons, I don't really find much value in the whole #1, #2 description.  Excellent, very good, good, fair and below average works for me. 

92-93 - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 01:37 PM EST (#229022) #
One of the things Jays fans can be excited about this season is (hopefully) not having to watch starts by guys you KNOW won't be in the rotation next year. Over the past few years we've been subjected to to many starts from retreads like Tallet, Eveland, Burress, Parrish, Towers, Ohka, Zambrano, Taubenheim, etc... even in losing causes it will be interesting on a nightly basis to watch guys like Litsch, Rzepczynski, Drabek, Stewart, and whoever else might get a shot (Richmond? Mills?) because you can at least hope you are watching development for the team's future success from guys in pre-arb.
TamRa - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 02:55 PM EST (#229024) #
I know ERA is far from the defnintive measure, but it's easiest to research lists.

Here's the highest ERA in the top 30  pitchers (min 140 IP) in MLB, then the highest in the top 60, and top 90, by year:

'10 - 3.43 - 4.07 - 4.70
'09 - 3.77 - 4.16 - 5.32
'08 - 3.54 - 4.16 - 4.84
'07 - 3.74 - 4.29 - 5.17
'06 - 3.91 - 4.53 - 5.57
'05 - 3.61 - 4.17 - 4.83
'04 - 3.79 - 4.59 - 5.35
'03 - 3.75 - 4.19 - 5.15
'02 - 3.47 - 4.27 - 5.28
'01 - 3.90 - 4.47 - 5.41

Average: 3.69 - 4.29 - 5.16

It's possible to, I would suggest, argue that while an individual's ERA n an individual year is variable enough to be a somewhat unreliable measure of performance, the aggregate of  900 seasons is more reliable.

So if you take all the pitchers in MLB as one "depth chart" and build the 30 best rotations by assigning from the top of the list one pitcher to every team and then another to every team and so forth then the top 30 would be "#1" pitchers, right?

In such a scenario, your "#1" guys would, on average, have an ERA lower than 3.70 (and almost always below 3.90) and so forth.

Now, taking that rule of thumb and applying it to the Jays of 2010 and what might reasonably be predicted for 2011, then Romero was on the fringe of being a #1 in 2010 and any marginal improvement would put him in that group. Cecil was within the average margin for a #2, and Morrow was comfortably within the average range of a #3 and much closer to a #2 than a #4. From April 19 through the end of the year Morrow's ERA was 4.00 which would make him a #2. From may 31 through the end of the year it was 3.36 which would make him a #1.

I think it's not remotely a stretch to say that all three are projectable to be #2 quality pitchers in 2011 and that each individually has legitimate #1 potential (by this measure) though I suppose a level of optimisim (or lack thereof) would factor in your view of who WOULD do so.

Also, on a more subjective level, Zep had an ERA last year of 4.95 (despite early struggles) and is at 4.32 for his career, and Listch is at 4.10 for his career. I think it's reasonably arguable that even if Drabek isn't here, you could field a rotation of five guys who are no worse than a #3 and all five being potential #2 quality (laying aside more intangible issues about things like how much experience you need to actually BE a #2 or whatever - just going by the ERAs)

John Northey - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 04:04 PM EST (#229026) #
Thinking about the big 3 (Romero/Cecil/Morrow in whatever order) I started thinking about Atlanta's big 3 in the 90's. How did those 3 do at the same ages?
In 2010...
Romero: 111 ERA+ age 25
Cecil: 98 ERA+ age 23
Morrow: 92 ERA+ age 25

ERA+ at age...
23: Maddux 129, Glavine 99, Smoltz 105
25: Maddux 116, Glavine 153 (Cy), Smoltz 130

Obviously our big 3 are well behind the gold standard. Just a reminder of how amazing that trio was. Steve Avery was original the #3 instead of Maddux, he was a 138/92 for ages 23/25 (after age 24 he never again had a 100 ERA+, only 16 IP after age 29). Just a reminder of what can happen.
Noah - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 05:45 PM EST (#229027) #

Mike Napoli a Blue Jay according to Ken Rosenthal (via twitter).

Interesting move which may not be good new for Arencibia.  Although the plan might be for Napoli to play a little Catcher, First Base and split DH duties with EE. 

greenfrog - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 07:12 PM EST (#229076) #
Woah. Now this is news.
greenfrog - Friday, January 21 2011 @ 07:17 PM EST (#229079) #
Rosenthal: Wells and cash to Angels, Napoli and Rivera to Jays.
2010's Most Infrequent Thrower of Fastballs | 49 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.