PDA

View Full Version : Ubaldo rocked again; anyone still wish the Reds landed him?



Blitz Dorsey
08-21-2011, 03:23 PM
I for one was hoping to get Ubaldo Jimenez ... but it sounds like the reports that "something is wrong about him" were true. He got rocked again today -- 8 ER in just 3.1 IP in a big game for the Indians against the Tigers:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/gametracker/live/MLB_20110821_CLE@DET

When Jimenez was the best pitcher in MLB through the first half of the 2010 season, he was routinely reaching 99-100 MPH with his fastball. Now he's down to about 95. You don't lose 4-5 MPH off your fastball for no reason.

So, looks like I was wrong about this one. Glad the Reds didn't give up a couple top prospects for Jimenez. Now, if we could have traded Yonder straight up (or Yonder and Volquez) I would still be down for that, but overall it looks like there is something wrong with this guy and I'm glad the Reds didn't bite when the Rockies were asking for a lot.

oneupper
08-21-2011, 03:43 PM
Wasn't there something about the Rockies not accepting a physical? Damaged goods?

paulrichjr
08-21-2011, 04:40 PM
Wasn't there something about the Rockies not accepting a physical? Damaged goods?

He passed a physical with the Indians.

dougdirt
08-21-2011, 04:45 PM
He passed a physical with the Indians.

Does a physical include an MRI though?

LoganBuck
08-21-2011, 04:46 PM
Wasn't there something about the Rockies not accepting a physical? Damaged goods?

No physical was allowed until after the trade was made. Jimenez was examined in Goodyear before the trade was completed.

Brutus
08-21-2011, 05:06 PM
Does a physical include an MRI though?

My understanding is that it's just a routine thing, but that's definitely a good question.

dougdirt
08-21-2011, 05:10 PM
My understanding is that it's just a routine thing, but that's definitely a good question.

That is what I was thinking. They aren't going to give an MRI if the player has good range of motion/strength, but that doesn't mean there isn't something wrong inside of his arm when he does pitch.

Tom Servo
08-21-2011, 05:12 PM
As I said at the time, I think there was an underlying reason as to why the Rox would be willing to part with a young, reasonably priced pitcher like Jiminez.

cincinnati chili
08-21-2011, 05:16 PM
They did an MRI. It came back clean:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ubaldo_jimenez/

I didn't see today's game. Other than velocity being down, how was his command?

dougdirt
08-21-2011, 05:37 PM
They did an MRI. It came back clean:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ubaldo_jimenez/

I didn't see today's game. Other than velocity being down, how was his command?
Gotcha. Of course, the note says MRI. Does that mean they only checked one of his elbow/shoulder instead of both?

RedEye
08-21-2011, 05:37 PM
They did an MRI. It came back clean:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ubaldo_jimenez/

I didn't see today's game. Other than velocity being down, how was his command?

Maybe it was a "Gary Majewski" style physical. ;-)

cincinnati chili
08-21-2011, 08:40 PM
A good read on events leading up to the trade:

http://www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_18726181

While injury is certainly a possibility, I suspect this is all between the ears. Maybe something's going on in his life that he's not talking about.

VR
08-21-2011, 08:57 PM
Can't think of any deadline trades that have been beneficial?

PuffyPig
08-21-2011, 09:25 PM
You can't base a trade decision based on one start.

His velocity had already fallen, so those wanting to make the trade already new that fact.

Patrick Bateman
08-21-2011, 09:30 PM
It's 4 starts.

I was mainly against the trade, but his peripherals have been fine thus far, and anything can happen in 4 games. Can we lay the kneejerk analysis aside for just once? The trade was more motivated towards future seasons anyways where he is more likely to make a difference.

PuffyPig
08-21-2011, 09:43 PM
Can we lay the kneejerk analysis aside for just once?

I'm assuming that's a retorical question.

Redszone is built upon knee jerk reactions.

cincinnati chili
08-21-2011, 10:17 PM
It's 4 starts.

I was mainly against the trade, but his peripherals have been fine thus far, and anything can happen in 4 games. Can we lay the kneejerk analysis aside for just once? The trade was more motivated towards future seasons anyways where he is more likely to make a difference.

Are you saying this was the Indians' motivation? If so, I completely disagree. Yes, the Indians get Ubaldo for 2 more years, but they would have had White and Pomeranz for at least six more years. This was clearly the Indians going for it this year at the expense of at least 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 but possibly at the expense of 2012 as well.

Now there's a real chance that Ubaldo will get outpitched at the major league level by Alex White for the remainder of THIS year (he's starting for the Rox this week, having dominated every level where he's pitched), which would make the trade a disastrous talking point for the Cleveland media during the offseason.

I also disagree that 4 homers plus 8 walks in 21 innings constitutes good peripherals. Yes he's getting strikeouts per inning but so did Glendon Rusch and others of his ilk who throw too many fat strikes, but occasionally fool people. His WHIP as an Indian will be 1.81 in the paper tomorrow (30 hits and 8 walks in 21 innings).

I like Ubaldo a lot, but it's not too early to worry.

Patrick Bateman
08-21-2011, 11:19 PM
I actually did mean from the point of view of the Reds, I apologize for ambiguity. As well coming into this game, he had great peripherals. The homeruns are likely not something he can really control as he was getting his normal fair share of groundballs and lots of K's.

I absolutely think the Indians paid the price they did because this year was obtainable.

I maintain the fact that I thought the price was too high for the Reds in consideration of the point that we had a 5% chance of making the playoffs at the time, was going to cost propsects that I thought were valuable to the Reds, and that his declining velocity meant he was a big time injury and stark decline risk.

But 4 starts? I'm sure Ubaldo has had 4 starts before with bad walk rates. I would say it doesn't appear that he is pitching materially different than he was the remainder of the season. I just don't think he is the elite dominating ace that some valued him as.

Homer Bailey
08-21-2011, 11:53 PM
I'm assuming that's a retorical question.

Redszone is built upon a select few making knee jerk reactions.

Slightly adjusted for ya.

Blitz Dorsey
08-22-2011, 12:30 AM
You can't base a trade decision based on one start.

His velocity had already fallen, so those wanting to make the trade already new that fact.

Who's basing it on one start? Did you miss his other three starts with the Tribe? Not to mention the fact he's been awful since July of 2010. I was referring more to all of that, not one game.

Blitz Dorsey
08-22-2011, 12:33 AM
It's 4 starts.

I was mainly against the trade, but his peripherals have been fine thus far, and anything can happen in 4 games. Can we lay the kneejerk analysis aside for just once? The trade was more motivated towards future seasons anyways where he is more likely to make a difference.

Obviously our definitions of "knee jerk reaction" are vastly different. And you are the same guy that thought me being down on Edinson Volquez at the beginning of the year was just a "knee jerk reaction" even though it was all about Volquez's full body of work that concerned me. It wasn't just that Volquez started off this season bad, it was more that he seemed like a one-year wonder who had some serious red flags. (Awful minor league stats, considered a headcase by the Rangers, busted for PEDs, etc.) How did that one work out?

With Jimenez, obviously there are a heck of a lot more warning signs than just one or four starts. He's been awful for over 13 months now. Knee-jerk reaction? Not even close. Quit assuming you know what other people are thinking. This was not a knee-jerk reaction based off a small sample size. Please explain how a guy losing at least 5 MPH on his fastball just magically happens. And please explain how someone criticizing him for being awful for 13 months is a knee-jerk reaction.

Personally, I think this is all hilarious because I have to deal with a lot of Indians fans on a daily basis.

Patrick Bateman
08-22-2011, 01:45 AM
Obviously our definitions of "knee jerk reaction" are vastly different. And you are the same guy that thought me being down on Edinson Volquez at the beginning of the year was just a "knee jerk reaction" even though it was all about Volquez's full body of work that concerned me. It wasn't just that Volquez started off this season bad, it was more that he seemed like a one-year wonder who had some serious red flags. (Awful minor league stats, considered a headcase by the Rangers, busted for PEDs, etc.) How did that one work out?



You actually missed the point of most of my criticisms of my posts about Volquez. It wasn't even the evaluation of his performance, which although you were quick to jump on, was still defensible on your part because of his other issues. It was more the fact that you criticized the Reds for a contract offer that YOU didn't even know what was.

By the way, I'm not even interested in rehashing that, but I'm simply defending your inability to present an argument at face value.

BTW, IMO, you have legitimate concerns about Jimenez that I think can be well represented with evidence. I just don't think that his 4 games with the Tribe prove much at all. The long standing concerns about his declining velocity and performance over a full season are far more compelling than what he has done over a some 20 day period of time. I'm sure he has done worse and better over other selected 4 periods of starts. I really don't think evaluating any other random benchmarks are any more indicitave then these 4 starts are just becuase they are more recent in your memory and easy to throw a fit about.

Blitz Dorsey
08-22-2011, 02:15 AM
BTW, IMO, you have legitimate concerns about Jimenez that I think can be well represented with evidence. I just don't think that his 4 games with the Tribe prove much at all. The long standing concerns about his declining velocity and performance over a full season are far more compelling than what he has done over a some 20 day period of time. I'm sure he has done worse and better over other selected 4 periods of starts

I agree that these four starts alone don't "prove" anything. But would you concur that it's further evidence that there could very well be "something wrong" with Jimenez? Something a lot more serious than the Indians would ever want to admit? Like I said, losing that much velocity on your fastball doesn't just happen for no reason.

So, in summary ... these four starts are just a small part of the puzzle that seems to be coming together. And that puzzle indicates that Ubaldo Jimenez is ... cue STP ... half the man he used to be.

PuffyPig
08-22-2011, 08:19 AM
With Jimenez, obviously there are a heck of a lot more warning signs than just one or four starts. He's been awful for over 13 months now. Knee-jerk reaction? Not even close. Quit assuming you know what other people are thinking. This was not a knee-jerk reaction based off a small sample size. Please explain how a guy losing at least 5 MPH on his fastball just magically happens. And please explain how someone criticizing him for being awful for 13 months is a knee-jerk reaction.



Before those 4 starts you were of the view that the Reds should trade for this guy.

If your view was that he's been horrible for 13 months, why did you want the Reds to trade for him?

These 4 starts have changed your opinion from "I want this guy" to "I'm glad we didn't trade for him". That's a 180 degree turn based on 4 starts.

PuffyPig
08-22-2011, 08:22 AM
Slightly adjusted for ya.

Thank you, you are correct.

Blitz Dorsey
08-22-2011, 08:26 AM
Before those 4 starts you were of the view that the Reds should trade for this guy.

If your view was that he's been horrible for 13 months, why did you want the Reds to trade for him?

These 4 starts have changed your opinion from "I want this guy" to "I'm glad we didn't trade for him". That's a 180 degree turn based on 4 starts.

No, it's not a 180 degree turn. I would have taken a chance on Jimenez in July if the Rockies' asking price wasn't so high. However, even when the trade was made I thought there might be something wrong with him ... and there were plenty of reports that said the same thing. So, I was already skeptical of him. These four starts with the Indians are just further evidence that the Reds made the right move in standing pat.

That said, I would still take him over Edinson Volquez in a heartbeat ... and would throw in an extra prospect if that's what it took. I would take a "damaged goods" Jimenez over Volquez any day. It's just looking like the Indians gave up too much for him ... and that brings a smile to my face.

hebroncougar
08-22-2011, 10:48 AM
No, it's not a 180 degree turn. I would have taken a chance on Jimenez in July if the Rockies' asking price wasn't so high. However, even when the trade was made I thought there might be something wrong with him ... and there were plenty of reports that said the same thing. So, I was already skeptical of him. These four starts with the Indians are just further evidence that the Reds made the right move in standing pat.

That said, I would still take him over Edinson Volquez in a heartbeat ... and would throw in an extra prospect if that's what it took. I would take a "damaged goods" Jimenez over Volquez any day. It's just looking like the Indians gave up too much for him ... and that brings a smile to my face.

The Reds can drop Volquez with no consequences (outside of Redszone exploding saying we shouldn't have traded Hamilton for him). If Jimenez is damaged goods, you're on the hook for several more years and millions of dollars. I'd rather have Volquez at this point, if Jimenez is damaged.

Reds/Flyers Fan
08-22-2011, 02:03 PM
Once it was known that the Reds were allegedly talking about James Shields, I wanted nothing more to do with Ubaldo.

What an awful trade this is going to be for Cleveland.

membengal
08-22-2011, 02:14 PM
Wow. Redszone is so uptight at this point that a person cannot even make an "I was wrong thread" without being told they are doing it wrong.

Plus Plus
08-22-2011, 05:18 PM
The Reds can drop Volquez with no consequences (outside of Redszone exploding saying we shouldn't have traded Hamilton for him).

I really don't think this is true. I see Volquez as basically being Jonathan Sanchez or Francisco Liriano with a shorter track record, and I would bet my bottom dollar that granting Volquez his outright release would lead to 29 other teams attempting to claim him.

TRF
08-22-2011, 05:29 PM
I really don't think this is true. I see Volquez as basically being Jonathan Sanchez or Francisco Liriano with a shorter track record, and I would bet my bottom dollar that granting Volquez his outright release would lead to 29 other teams attempting to claim him.

yep.

Patrick Bateman
08-22-2011, 05:31 PM
The Reds can drop Volquez with no consequences (outside of Redszone exploding saying we shouldn't have traded Hamilton for him). If Jimenez is damaged goods, you're on the hook for several more years and millions of dollars. I'd rather have Volquez at this point, if Jimenez is damaged.

FYI, i would trade Volquez plus something decent for Jiminez in a second.
His contract even if he washes out isn't an extreme amount. And even at his current standards and issues is still offering a huge amount of surplus value. He's still a great gamble for his contract, just likley not at the price the Insidans paid for him.

TRF
08-22-2011, 05:41 PM
TJ surgery has become so routine, The rehab so much better that we often forget that there are people being rehabbed and repaired, not machines. EV has been putting up pretty decent numbers since going down, and IMO should stay there the rest of the season.

Here is the link to his Bats player page. http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=P&sid=t416&t=p_pbp&pid=450172

Looks like he's working on his control. his last two starts, lots of ground outs. lots of hits that last game, but he should be competing for a rotation spot as long as the Reds think Bailey is an option, Volquez will be too.

steig
08-22-2011, 06:02 PM
Wasn't there something about the Rockies not accepting a physical? Damaged goods?

I had read at the time of the trade that the physical and what could be examined was actually a point of negotiation between the Rockies and teams that were interested. Supposedly this is why the Yankees and Braves dropped out early.

PuffyPig
08-22-2011, 06:39 PM
I really don't think this is true. I see Volquez as basically being Jonathan Sanchez or Francisco Liriano with a shorter track record, and I would bet my bottom dollar that granting Volquez his outright release would lead to 29 other teams attempting to claim him.

Volquez would have a fair amount of value to 30 teams in MLB. His lowest value is on Redszone.

Sure he has had his problems, but arms like his don't grow on teams.

hebroncougar
08-22-2011, 07:36 PM
FYI, i would trade Volquez plus something decent for Jiminez in a second.
His contract even if he washes out isn't an extreme amount. And even at his current standards and issues is still offering a huge amount of surplus value. He's still a great gamble for his contract, just likley not at the price the Insidans paid for him.

Did you see the "if he's damaged" in my post?

hebroncougar
08-22-2011, 07:37 PM
I really don't think this is true. I see Volquez as basically being Jonathan Sanchez or Francisco Liriano with a shorter track record, and I would bet my bottom dollar that granting Volquez his outright release would lead to 29 other teams attempting to claim him.

And the Reds would owe him zero. That's my point. If Ubaldo's hurt, they'd be on the hook for the contract.

Patrick Bateman
08-22-2011, 08:16 PM
Did you see the "if he's damaged" in my post?

I actually did. The current damaged version is still pitching as well as if not better than we could reasonably expect Volquez to pitch like. He's still been very good.

PuffyPig
08-22-2011, 10:58 PM
In 2010, Jiminez had a xFIP of 3.60.

With the Rockies this year, it was 3.61.

With Cleveland this year, it is 3.61.

Let me get this straight, there's not knee jerk reactions based on a few bad results?

As usual, Patrick Batemen is bang on.

And as I type this, the Cardinals lose again, when Salas blows another, giving up a triple to old friend Aaron Miles. Carpenter leaves winning 1-0, and doesn't get the win. He'll be a little fussy tonight I think at home.

Blitz Dorsey
08-23-2011, 01:07 AM
In 2010, Jiminez had a xFIP of 3.60.

With the Rockies this year, it was 3.61.

With Cleveland this year, it is 3.61.

Let me get this straight, there's not knee jerk reactions based on a few bad results?

Oh, that solves it then. We now know Ubaldo is the same pitcher he was last year. [Not even close.]

You might want to take a look at his overall numbers and not cherry pick one stat that fits your (shaky) argument. I'll stand by my opinion that Jimenez is not even close to the same pitcher he was in 2010. (Which was really a split year for him -- first half dominant, second half not so much.)

You don't just lose roughly 5 MPH off your fastball for no reason. If he had the same velocity as he did last year and just had a few bad starts, I could buy into the "knee-jerk reaction" argument. However, looking at it realistically, we're talking about a pitcher that is damaged goods and hasn't looked right since June of 2010. Maybe our definitions of "knee-jerk reaction" are completely different. I would call what I'm seeing out of Ubaldo more of a pattern than a small blip on the radar.

What's really great is EVERY Indians fan I know is lamenting this trade. They all hate it. I would tell them "Hey, it could be worse: You could have traded Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez." But I just allow them to "wallow in the mire."

Blitz Dorsey
08-23-2011, 01:25 AM
Wow. Redszone is so uptight at this point that a person cannot even make an "I was wrong thread" without being told they are doing it wrong.

:beerme:

TRF
08-23-2011, 09:35 AM
Oh, that solves it then. We now know Ubaldo is the same pitcher he was last year. [Not even close.]

You might want to take a look at his overall numbers and not cherry pick one stat that fits your (shaky) argument. I'll stand by my opinion that Jimenez is not even close to the same pitcher he was in 2010. (Which was really a split year for him -- first half dominant, second half not so much.)

You don't just lose roughly 5 MPH off your fastball for no reason. If he had the same velocity as he did last year and just had a few bad starts, I could buy into the "knee-jerk reaction" argument. However, looking at it realistically, we're talking about a pitcher that is damaged goods and hasn't looked right since June of 2010. Maybe our definitions of "knee-jerk reaction" are completely different. I would call what I'm seeing out of Ubaldo more of a pattern than a small blip on the radar.

What's really great is EVERY Indians fan I know is lamenting this trade. They all hate it. I would tell them "Hey, it could be worse: You could have traded Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez." But I just allow them to "wallow in the mire."

Discounting his Cleveland numbers, his K/9 in 2011 is 8.63. in 2010 it was 8.69 His K/BB in 2011 is 2.31 in 2010 it was 2.33 The real difference is in how he has been hit this year vs. last year. In Colorado his OPS against was .734 this year, and in 2010 it was .610

His overall 2011 numbers suggest he's on pace for the same number of walks as 2010, likely the same number of K's. Not every pitcher sees an uptic in their overall numbers when switching leagues. He's also faced Detroit twice (division leader) White Sox once (2nd place) and Texas once (division leader).

So, when Ubaldo has a sub 3.00 era over the next two years following this one with roughly 400+ strikeouts and 34 or more wins, I doubt Cleveland will be lamenting the trade.

Blitz Dorsey
08-23-2011, 07:39 PM
Discounting his Cleveland numbers, his K/9 in 2011 is 8.63. in 2010 it was 8.69 His K/BB in 2011 is 2.31 in 2010 it was 2.33 The real difference is in how he has been hit this year vs. last year. In Colorado his OPS against was .734 this year, and in 2010 it was .610

His overall 2011 numbers suggest he's on pace for the same number of walks as 2010, likely the same number of K's. Not every pitcher sees an uptic in their overall numbers when switching leagues. He's also faced Detroit twice (division leader) White Sox once (2nd place) and Texas once (division leader).

So, when Ubaldo has a sub 3.00 era over the next two years following this one with roughly 400+ strikeouts and 34 or more wins, I doubt Cleveland will be lamenting the trade.

Well, if you're saying Jimenez will have an ERA below 3.00, will win 17 games and strikeout 200+ per season in 2012 and 2013, then you won't find a person on the planet that will argue with you. The question is whether you even believe he'll do that yourself. Are you just saying it's possible he will put up those numbers, or are you saying it's likely/you're predicting he will? I would certainly accept a friendly wager than he will fall short of those numbers.

TRF
08-24-2011, 09:26 AM
Well, if you're saying Jimenez will have an ERA below 3.00, will win 17 games and strikeout 200+ per season in 2012 and 2013, then you won't find a person on the planet that will argue with you. The question is whether you even believe he'll do that yourself. Are you just saying it's possible he will put up those numbers, or are you saying it's likely/you're predicting he will? I would certainly accept a friendly wager than he will fall short of those numbers.

I'm saying he's pretty much what he's been, that 2010 1st half was more lucky results and balls finding gloves instead of gaps. I'm saying his 3 year splits are a pretty good indicator of who he is as a pitcher. And I'm saying he had the bad luck of switching to the AL and facing 3 very tough teams right out of the gate.

I don't know what he's GOING to do. I wouldn't have been upset to lose Wood or Bailey or Alonso or a combination of the three for him though.

Blitz Dorsey
08-24-2011, 11:19 AM
I'm saying he's pretty much what he's been, that 2010 1st half was more lucky results and balls finding gloves instead of gaps. I'm saying his 3 year splits are a pretty good indicator of who he is as a pitcher. And I'm saying he had the bad luck of switching to the AL and facing 3 very tough teams right out of the gate.

I don't know what he's GOING to do. I wouldn't have been upset to lose Wood or Bailey or Alonso or a combination of the three for him though.

I hear you. I wanted him too even though I heard about the warning signs. (As long as the asking price wasn't too high -- which it was.) Will be interesting to see if he's really a completely different pitcher now or if he'll perform well the rest of the way.

PuffyPig
08-24-2011, 11:43 AM
Oh, that solves it then. We now know Ubaldo is the same pitcher he was last year. [Not even close.]

You might want to take a look at his overall numbers and not cherry pick one stat that fits your (shaky) argument.


xFip is hardly "one stat" that's being cherry picked.

It's a stat that takes into account the 3 things pitchers can control, K's, walks, and HR's allowed, and normalizes HR's based on FB's in case you have been unlucky with those.

If I had to pick one stat that would be the best one to predict what a pitcher with do in the future, that would be the one.

To me, it's like complaining that someone is basing a players offensive ability on OPS+.

cincinnati chili
08-25-2011, 01:33 AM
xFip is hardly "one stat" that's being cherry picked.

It's a stat that takes into account the 3 things pitchers can control, K's, walks, and HR's allowed, and normalizes HR's based on FB's in case you have been unlucky with those.

If I had to pick one stat that would be the best one to predict what a pitcher with do in the future, that would be the one.

To me, it's like complaining that someone is basing a players offensive ability on OPS+.

Can one easily understand how it "normalizes?" This is where I get skeptical of the stat, albeit having done zero research on it.

Ubaldo has given up 6 homers since the all-star break (39.2 innings). By comparison, last year he gave up 10 homers all season (221 innings). This is THE main problem for him during his slide this year, and it may very well be related to the drop in velocity.

Brutus
08-25-2011, 08:18 AM
Can one easily understand how it "normalizes?" This is where I get skeptical of the stat, albeit having done zero research on it.

Ubaldo has given up 6 homers since the all-star break (39.2 innings). By comparison, last year he gave up 10 homers all season (221 innings). This is THE main problem for him during his slide this year, and it may very well be related to the drop in velocity.

I personally don't think xFIP is any better than FIP (and many studies show there's a minimal difference). However, the theory behind xFIP is that pitchers can control how many fly balls they give up, but they don't have much control to the rate of homers given up as a percentage of those fly balls.

So what xFIP does is adjusts the rate a pitcher has given up toward league average. So if 15% of their fly balls have gone for home runs, the stat will normalize it down to around 10% and use FIP based on how many homers would be allowed at that rate.

The mistake with xFIP is the assumption that there's no control over this. While it's been shown to be small, there are some pitchers that do generally perform above or beyond the threshold with some consistency. That's why I personally don't think xFIP is very favorable except with pitchers that pitch in extreme parks.

PuffyPig
08-25-2011, 09:30 AM
Can one easily understand how it "normalizes?" This is where I get skeptical of the stat, albeit having done zero research on it.

Ubaldo has given up 6 homers since the all-star break (39.2 innings). By comparison, last year he gave up 10 homers all season (221 innings). This is THE main problem for him during his slide this year, and it may very well be related to the drop in velocity.


He's not giving up more FB's, just more HR's. His rate has basically doubled.

He was lucky in the past, and is unlucky now. Since he's striking out as many batters as ever, and not giving up any more FB's, the spike in HR/FB is likely attributable to small sample size randomness.

cincinnati chili
08-26-2011, 12:46 AM
He's not giving up more FB's, just more HR's. His rate has basically doubled.

He was lucky in the past, and is unlucky now. Since he's striking out as many batters as ever, and not giving up any more FB's, the spike in HR/FB is likely attributable to small sample size randomness.

I'm going to have to be convinced that a pitcher has no more control over giving up a fly ball than he does over giving up a home run.

When Voros McCracken came out with DiPS, it was controversial, but it always made sense and rang true to me. Pitchers don't have tons of control over balls hit in play (a few outliers notwithstanding). But there are places in the strike zone where you can keep 98% of major league hitters in the ball park. It's one thing to get a ball in the air, but another to square one up.