The ’09 Staff

Dave · September 11, 2008 at 10:52 am · Filed Under Mariners 

Despite the fact that the M’s 2008 pitching staff has been horrible, there are plenty of reasons to think that it will be significantly better next year, even if they don’t make any real changes to the roster. Since I’m running into some time constraints, I won’t go through all the machinations behind these numbers, but here’s a quick-and-dirty projection for the team’s pitching staff for next year. And yes, I’m assuming whoever comes aboard will have the common sense to dump Washburn on whoever will take the biggest chunk of his contract.

	Pitcher	Innings	FIP
1	Felix	200	3.40
2	Bedard	140	3.60
3	Morrow	130	4.00
4	Silva	180	5.00
5	RRS	150	5.25
6	Feier.	100	5.25
7	Batista	100	5.00
			
Long	Dickey	80	4.50
Long	Jimenez	70	4.50
Middle	Corco	70	4.00
Middle	Lowe	60	5.00
ROOGY	Green	70	3.50
LOOGY	Thomas	40	4.50
Closer	Putz	70	3.50

We’re not being outlandish with anything – no predicted ace-dom for Felix, no miraculous health for Bedard, not asking Morrow to take the ball every five days, not expecting Putz to return to ’07 form – there’s a basic regression analysis and not much else. It’s crude, but since we’re not trying to be extremely precise, it’s good enough.

That group adds up to 1,460 innings (1,458 is 162 nine inning games) and has a combined FIP of 4.34. That’s pretty much a league average pitching staff.

Yep, league average. With no big additions, no big surges, but just some regression from Silva and Batista (neither are as bad as they’ve been this year) and a bit more health from Bedard and Putz, and you’ve got a league average pitching staff without even trying. Add a real lefty setup man and you could do even better.

The idea that this team has to lose 90 games next year while going through a painful rebuilding process is bunk.

Comments

25 Responses to “The ’09 Staff”

  1. confess on September 11th, 2008 11:00 am

    Supposing Washburn isn’t traded, does that bump Batista to the bullpen no matter what his salary is? Or would Batista stay and bump one of the kids?

  2. Mr. Egaas on September 11th, 2008 11:12 am

    Just a hunch, but something tells me Dickey is a goner.

  3. Mike Snow on September 11th, 2008 11:12 am

    I would think this assumes Batista’s effectively in the bullpen when he’s not starting anyway. You could put him or Dickey in as “7th starter” in this setup and I really don’t think it would make much difference.

    Washburn I imagine would mostly take away innings from Rowland-Smith and Feierabend, and give roughly similar performance to this projection. The issue is more that with this staff, you don’t need him, and if you can save his salary to use elsewhere, you should.

  4. terry on September 11th, 2008 11:16 am

    I kind of consider 200 innings with a FIP of 3.40 to be akin to “ace-dom”.

  5. smb on September 11th, 2008 11:16 am

    I think there is a decent shot they outperform this projection and end up a bit above league average, but I can’t find anything in those numbers that looks unlikely or less than reasonable. Hopefully the offense can score some runs next season!

  6. eponymous coward on September 11th, 2008 11:19 am

    The idea that this team has to lose 90 games next year while going through a painful rebuilding process is bunk.

    Exactly. And if you give this team credible middle infield and outfield defense, and Morrow + Bedard pitch more like 350 IP with a 3.70 FIP, this team isn’t so bad.

    The M’s problems don’t require a dump truck full of money and a ton of long term contracts to solve: reasonable solutions for defense in the middle infield and bats at 1B/DH are out there- teams find these kinds of players every year. What they need is a GM who isn’t brain-dead, and front office philosophies that aren’t mired in baseball cliches.

  7. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on September 11th, 2008 11:29 am

    We’re not being outlandish with anything

    Washburn isn’t in the rotation. I am hoping and praying that the new GM is a good one. But, if I am conservative on my projections, I’d assume a GM who is an “established” guy who has a blind spot re: talent evaluation, but a heck of a good personality. Through that lens, Washburn is pitching in our rotation next year. I’d also assume a manager who looks at Wash’s salary and plays him until it is too late to make a difference regardless of performance. That said, his results won’t be much different than RRS or Feierabend, so you still have a league average staff, just a much more expensive one.

  8. Evan on September 11th, 2008 11:39 am

    I kind of consider 200 innings with a FIP of 3.40 to be akin to “ace-dom”.

    I have to agree. I mean, that wouldn’t make him one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball (compare him to Halladay’s stats this year – 224 IP with 3.03 FIP with 3 starts to go), but that would make him a solid #1 starter.

  9. BigB on September 11th, 2008 12:10 pm

    Just read that Chris Tillman was named the Orioles minor league pitcher of the month for August… sure he could have been of some help for us in 2009.

  10. Aaron on September 11th, 2008 12:24 pm

    The pitching for this team hasn’t been the biggest problem for a few years.
    2004: .270/.331/.396 63 wins
    2005: .256/.317/.391 69 wins
    2006: .272/.325/.424 78 wins
    2007: .287/.337/.425 88 wins
    2008: .266/.319/.392 ~65 wins
    The Bedard trade didn’t work out helping the team win more, but when the offense totally collapses, that has to be a huge consideration as well.
    So the offense goes, so goes the team.
    Some non-lead gloves would be nice, too.

    A league-average FIP won’t win games when the team struggles to score 4/game.

  11. TomG on September 11th, 2008 12:55 pm

    I’m going to hold on to my cautious optimism that the new GM realizes the rotation is still in need of a long-term solution and that (s)he won’t fall for the pyrite gleam of Silva (or Batista’s) regression or think that RRS or Feierabend are great middle-rotation options.

  12. gwangung on September 11th, 2008 12:58 pm

    I’m going to hold on to my cautious optimism that the new GM realizes the rotation is still in need of a long-term solution and that (s)he won’t fall for the pyrite gleam of Silva (or Batista’s) regression or think that RRS or Feierabend are great middle-rotation options.

    Huh.

    And I thought the point of the original post was that the places where easy fixes (and thus, attention) could occur was on the everyday player side of things.

  13. TomG on September 11th, 2008 1:10 pm

    And I thought the point of the original post was that the places where easy fixes (and thus, attention) could occur was on the everyday player side of things.

    I’m definitely not disagreeing that point. In terms of immediate attention, the position players should take priority. I just worry that a sudden regression to a somewhat league-average rotation is going to convince a new GM that no further changes are necessary to the rotation.

  14. mkd on September 11th, 2008 1:32 pm

    It sounds like the short term focus needs to be on team defense (to help those regressions find their way to the mean) while the long term focus needs to be on gathering up all the high-OBP prospects we can find. Couple those things with a little fiscal sanity and we’re well on our back way to entertaining (and eventually exciting) baseball.

    I was horrified to hear Armstrong’s quote about tearing everything down and rebuilding. It’s a complete overreaction and entirely unjustified. The front office is showing signs of manic-depression, no? When things are good it’s all: “We’re gonna win it all! Yeah!” And when things are going bad it’s all: “Tear it down. We suck and need to replace everyone.”

    These mood swings are troubling. Oughtn’t we send some lithium Chuck’s way? Get him to chill out a little and recognize that while we were never that good, we are also not this bad?

  15. gwangung on September 11th, 2008 1:46 pm

    I’m definitely not disagreeing that point. In terms of immediate attention, the position players should take priority. I just worry that a sudden regression to a somewhat league-average rotation is going to convince a new GM that no further changes are necessary to the rotation.

    Well, if they’re not particularly competent, they’d think that. But any good GM is going to look for improvements and weigh the costs involved….

    These mood swings are troubling. Oughtn’t we send some lithium Chuck’s way? Get him to chill out a little and recognize that while we were never that good, we are also not this bad?

    That’s a lot like fans. Very pendulum like, because they don’t know the game very well. You know…a good, competent baseball mind could solve that. Maybe they ought to hire one and make ’em the GM….

  16. Shizane on September 11th, 2008 2:38 pm

    Why no Eric O’Flaherty? What’s his status?

  17. Paul B on September 11th, 2008 2:53 pm

    It won’t change the overall conclusion, but I think a 5 FIP for Batista is being overly optimistic. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was out of baseball by the end of next season. He’s shown an increase in walks and homers this year (in addition to general suckiness), and he is 37 years old. He might be near the end of the line.

    If he does end up throwing 100 innings for the M’s next year, that could be a real bad sign.

  18. heyoka on September 11th, 2008 3:19 pm

    Concurrence!

    The staff has upside. I believe Batista could still be a good middle relief option. A healthy 1-2-3 of Felix-Bedard-Morrow may even well provide a .600 ball club IF the offense were average to above average. Supposing Raul were retained as DH (just an arbitrary assumption), upgrades could be found at 1B and LF, right? Wouldn’t two decent MLB bats make a profound impact on the offense? You turn some minuses into pluses; maybe some guys that don’t ground out on the first pitch might work into some bullpens and make this offense above average…

    How much better might Ichiro or Beltre hit had they not had to face starters who had just blown through the lineup on 20 pitches?

  19. Typical Idiot Fan on September 11th, 2008 3:30 pm

    7 Batista 100 5.00

    With no big additions, no big surges, but just some regression from Silva and Batista (neither are as bad as they’ve been this year)

    Not sure about Batista. Wouldn’t the expectations of going from a 5.98 FIP to a ~5.00 FIP only apply if he was still of major league quality? Except for limited bullpen usage, I haven’t seen that from him this season.

  20. JMHawkins on September 11th, 2008 5:24 pm

    I agree with the skepticsm about Batista. He could well be done and out of baseball next year. But, I don’t think that changes Dave’s overall projection. A competent GM could replace 100 IP at a low 5’s FIP without straining too badly.


    I just worry that a sudden regression to a somewhat league-average rotation is going to convince a new GM that no further changes are necessary to the rotation.

    Further change isn’t really needed. I think that’s the main point. The M’s fixation with upgrading the rotation over the last few years is one of the main things responsible for the mess they’re in now. Huge contracts for marginal starters and ruinous trades for mythical aces. And I shouldn’t forget an unwillingness to trust “kids” like Baek or RRS with important jobs out of spring training.

  21. mln on September 11th, 2008 8:13 pm

    I can’t wait for next season when the Mariners launch their “We have 7 aces!” marketing campaign.

  22. fiftyone on September 11th, 2008 9:34 pm

    And if you can get an entire pitching staff to perform at a barely-above-league-average level, with a barely-above-league-average defense behind it, your offense only has to be very slightly above average for you to win 85-90 games again. (And 90-95 wins if one SP overperforms.)

  23. fiftyone on September 11th, 2008 9:38 pm

    Then, all you need is a lineup that looks approximately like this.

    1. RF I-chi-ro
    2. CF Reed
    3. DH Ibanez
    4. 3B Beltre
    5. 1B Clement
    6. 2B Lopez
    7. LF .750 OPS with a tiny bit of range
    8. C Johjima
    9. SS .700 OPS with a non lead-glove

    Why does this team have to lose 90 games next year? That’s preposterous.

  24. tetrad on September 12th, 2008 12:40 am

    Thank you for this quick analysis. It is positive news for next year which doesn’t hurt a bit.

    Does anyone have any comments on rumored ownership changes?

  25. party4marty on September 12th, 2008 8:18 am

    I am really happy that you posted this. I was thinking this exact thing on the way to work. Why would we concede 09 when we have one more year of Beltre, Bedard, Wash, Batista, Raul(maybe). It will pretty much be all blown up after next year on its own. Sign 2 expensive 1 year deals for LF and 1B, and see what we can do. then 50m falls off the books for oh ten.

    And if we suck next year- trade everyone.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.