Jered Weaver

by god allah star on Mar 23, 2007 7:46 AM EDT Comment 41 comments

personally i'm not too sure what to make of this kid.

he obviously played over his head while with the angels last year,
and most people seem to attribute this to his funky delivery.
but by just how much?

i know his "stuff" isn't the best,
but he seems to have great command and a few intangible aspects that make him likeable.
of course, i've also read that he might not be much more than a #3.

do any of you agree with that?
or are the opinions of him varying that much?

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You want a pitcher

that the league is going to "adjust" to, it's this guy, not Matsuzaka.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 8:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sure he's got a funky delivery, but...

He's had success at every level he's played. The biggest knock against Weaver has always been his strong fly-ball tendancy rather than "people will adjust to the delivery". Rich Lederer of www.baseballanalysts.com has been a long-time supporter of Weaver, and I'd suggest you read some of what he has to say on the matter if you want more info.

by mraver on Mar 23, 2007 8:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

very interesting stuff

thanks for the link.

by god allah star on Mar 23, 2007 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hit luck

His hit luck last year was insane. Your system may vary, so I'll leave the specifics for a bigger name, but his number for a half season would have been a red flag for a full season.

Don't get me wrong, I think Weaver will be better than his brother (maybe by a lot) in the long term, but this year could be a comedown in more ways than one.

by whichthat on Mar 23, 2007 8:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's part of what

I was talking about when I say "adjust." Not only do I think batters will have more success by seeing him some more, the underlaying numbers point towards his season last year not being as good as it looks on the surface - the numbers will fall back in line eventually.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shoulder

I'd be a lot more worried about the chronic tendonitis in his shoulder, apparently caused by his delivery, than his stuff. From what I've seen, his stuff looks pretty darn good.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 23, 2007 9:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

BABIP?

now ..
i'm not very well-versed on all the different stat categories, but i noticed Weaver's BABIP of .239 is extremely low.

I know BABIP has a bit to do with luck and the defense behind you, but he can't realistically keep that up for an entire season,
or can he?

carlos zambrano had a BABIP of .259,
and the previous year .258

is there a similarity between the two that i'm missing, that can explain the low BABIP?

by god allah star on Mar 23, 2007 9:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The most prominent

thing that stands out to me as to why Weaver can't keep that up is his GB/FB ratio of 0.61 - Zambrano has a lifetime ratio of 1.69. You don't normally see flyball pitchers getting that lucky and I don't see any reason that trend will continue for Weaver.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually

I have always heard that it's easier for flyball pitchers to have low BABIPs. Basically, a flyball is more likely to be an out but also more likely to be an XBH/HR, while a groundball is more likely to be a hit and a single.

Most of the consistent low BABIP pitchers (Barry Zito) are flyball pitchers.

by limozeen on Mar 23, 2007 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nope

No, nobody can sustain a .239 BABIP over consecutive seasons. He'll still be a productive pitcher but there will be a drop-off from last season.

by FI on Mar 23, 2007 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hm

so is there a direct correlation between good GB/FB ratio's and a lower BABIP? or is it more dependent upon the player and their individual case?

by god allah star on Mar 23, 2007 10:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not when

the gap is that wide. Zambrano basically gets 3 times as many groundballs as Weaver. The correlation is that groundballs are far more likely to be fielded and result in an out - resulting in a lower BABIP.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

heh

well, that makes a lot of sense.
i don't know why i didn't think of that.
thanks though, i appreciate it.
i'll probably come back later with some even dumber questions.

by god allah star on Mar 23, 2007 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's just not right

Flyballs are more likely to be outs.

Type Percent Out% HR%
Groundballs 45% 72% 0%
OF Flyballs 30% 75% 12%
Line Drives 19% 26% 2%
IF Flyballs 6% 97% 0%

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/never-swat-an-infield-fly/

by limozeen on Mar 23, 2007 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Groundballs go for hits much more than flyballs do. The reason that groundballs are so effective is that they become xbh's much less often than flyballs and obviously never go for homeruns. It shouldn't be that much of a surprise if you think about it. How many times flyballs to the outfield go for hits if their not line drives? Not very often.

Weaver won't likely maintain that kind of BABIP but with his flyball tendencies he probably will be among the league leaders most years. I think if you add it up what you've got is a pitcher that strikes guys out, gives out very few free passes and should have a BABIP that is below .290 which looks to me like a pretty darn good pitcher. Obviously the difference between him being an good flyball pitcher like Chris Young or Zito and being a bad flyball pitcher like Eric Milton is his homerun rate. If he can keep his homerun rate at least under around 1.2 I don't see any reason that he couldn't maintain era's that are solidly in the mid to low 3's.

by neutralluke on Mar 23, 2007 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

huh?

look at your numbers

by pedrophile on Mar 23, 2007 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I take it you didn't major in math?

Type Percent Out% HR%
Groundballs 45% 72% 0% = 32.4 outs/per 10 balls in play
OF Flyballs 30% 75% 12% = 22.5 outs/per 100 balls in play
Line Drives 19% 26% 2% = 4.94 outs/per 100 balls in play
IF Flyballs 6% 97% 0% = 5.82 outs/per 100 bals in play

The last three types listed are all flyballs so we add them together: 22.5 + 4.94 + 5.82 = 33.26

Since that 33.26 accounts for 55% of balls in play, we divide by 55.

33.26/55 = 60.47% of Flyballs result in an out. we already know from above that 32.4/45 = 72% of groundballs result in outs.

So there you have it. Groundballs are 11.53% more likely to result in an out. That's why we drool when Felix/Webb, etc. have good GB/FB ratios, not the other way around.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1st line

1st line should read:

Groundballs 45% 72% 0% = 32.4 outs/per 100 balls in play

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

now

If HR were counted in BABIP, you might have a point.

by limozeen on Mar 23, 2007 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and also

LD's are not FB's. There is a huge difference between GB/FB and GO/AO.

by limozeen on Mar 23, 2007 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now you're just playing semantics

FACT: If a ball is hit on the ground, it is more likely to be recorded as an out - whether it be a pop-up, a line-drive, a home-run, a duck-snort or whatever the hell you want to call it.

FACT: 0% of groundballs account for a HRs.

Who cares if HR's are factored out of BABIP - they account for a small percentage of fair balls put into play. Hell if anything adding the factored out HR's back into it only further proves my point.

There is a correlation between BABIP and GB/FB. It will vary slihtly depending how you look at it (GB/FB, GO/AO, GB %).

Nice job trying to back-peddle, but ya gotta wake up earlier than that.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

From this article:

http://www.futilityinfielder.com/dips04.html

Mitchel Lichtman - "Getting back to the possibility of certain classes of pitchers having unique hit preventing abilities, it should be clear that fly ball pitchers, on the average, will have a different $H than will ground ball pitchers, since a fly ball has a higher out percentage than a ground ball. In fact, extreme ground ball pitchers have a BABIP of .297 (1992-2003), whereas extreme fly ball pitchers have a BABIP of .281 (extreme = top and bottom 10% in G/F ratio for pitchers with at least 100 BIP in a season). Of course, the run value of a FB hit is greater than that of a GB hit, such that the actual run value of all pitchers? BABIP is almost exactly the same, regardless of their G/F ratios."

Nate Silver - "Based on the equations that I use for PECOTA, a difference of 20 points in GB/FB percentage (say 65% groundballs versus 45% groundballs) translates to a difference of about 1 percent in BABIP (say 30% H/BIP versus 29%). That isn't particularly large, and in the bigger picture, you'd rather have a guy generating more groundballs since the positive predictive influence on his home run rate is much greater than the negative one on his hit rate. But it's there, and it's statistically significant."

by marcello on Mar 23, 2007 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

The 'semantics' are inherent in the definition of BABIP - ball in play. Home runs are not counted in that definition, thus we're only talking about fly balls that stay in the IF or OF. As both of these are turned into outs more often than GBs, pitchers who throw a lot of fly balls tend to have lower BABIPs (and also give up more HRs, higher SLG% against, etc.).

Look at, oh, Ryan Franklin who's been consistently below MLB average in BABIP, and compare that to Derek Lowe who's sort of all over tha map, depending on his IF defense and luck.

GBs are valuable because 0% end up as HRs, but because HRs are specifically excluded from BABIP, that's just got no bearing on the discussion. It's a reason why people might prefer a GB pitcher to a FB one, all else being equal, but that has nothing to do with BABIP and everything to do with HR/FB or SLG against.

by marc w on Mar 23, 2007 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're really missing the point

This arguement really gets thrown out of whack by excluding line-drives. To me and for the purpose of my point, a groundball is any ball put in play that hits the ground before it leaves the infield grass - flyballs/line-drives/pop-ups. Excluding linedrives and homeruns is just a very convenient way of taking hard hit flyballs or "non-ground balls" out of the equation.

We don't have a catagory for breaking groundballs out of the equation (like we do for flyballs) that were scorched like we do for flyballs (HR + LD) - groundballs is pretty much stand alone. If you were to break groundballs into say, soft dribblers (equiv to a pop-up) + moderately hit (equiv to flyball) + scorched groundball, we could show the same thing - that the harder hit groundball doesn't get fielded for outs with as high of a percentage.

The numbers above do not lie. If the ball is hit on the ground - 72% of the time it's an out, where any other ball including LD's and HR's is only recorded as an out about 61% of the time. That in itself tells you that propensity to induce groundballs does effect BABIP. I know there are anomolies and there are also other things to consider, but to the link between the two is more significant than that suggests.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Arguing past each other

This started out as a discussion of BABIP. You don't want a discussion of BABIP, you want to prove that GB pitchers are, by and large, more valuable than FB pitchers. And hey, you're right! I don't think anyone here is going to argue with that, and yes, that's why Zambrano/Felix/Webb are better bets going forward than, say, Jered Weaver.
Agreement!

But it simply isn't true that GB pitchers will have better BABIP numbers. You can say that BABIP is skirting the issue by 'conveniently' excluding HRs. I sort of agree with that, but BABIP isn't trying to deceive anyone. It's a stat that's solely limited to things that fielders can influence. If you think that makes it deceptive, or that it confuses more than it clarifies, fine. Don't use it. But under the strict (possibly useless, according to you) definition of BABIP, FB pitchers will generally do a bit better. This has now been proven, in any one of the links provided in this thread. You keep trying to prove that GB pitchers are quite valuable due to the fact that they don't give up HRs - and THAT TO is generally held to be true.
No one's arguing that Zambrano<Weaver or that GB<FB. It's merely a discussion about BABIP. Your arguments about the limitations of BABIP are well-taken. And yet still not terribly relevant.<p> To get it back to the original question, Jered Weaver is likely to continue to have a slightly better BABIP than league average, but he is HIGHLY unlikely to repeat such a low ERA based on his FB%, his HR/FB and his strand rate.

OK?

by marc w on Mar 23, 2007 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Close enough

I'm not totally with you, but I see what you're saying and there's no sense in going any further with this as we're basically on the same page... I think?

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LD

Linedrives have shown to be almost uncontrollable by the pitcher and shouldn't be counted at a FLYBALL.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Mar 23, 2007 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never got

this line of thinking, nor do I agree with it.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

If you groove a pitch I'm betting you get a scorched liner back. I think pitchers have control over their pitches.

by pedrophile on Mar 23, 2007 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dunno

Research would disagree. Line drives seem to be hitter-controlled much more than pitcher-controlled. GB and FB are much different. Lumping LD in with FB is not useful at all because of the dubious nature of controlling LD.

To be clear, I know/agree that GB pitchers are much more valuable, and I misspoke by not clarifying that I was only talking about BABIP.

by limozeen on Mar 24, 2007 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree with pitchers can't control line drives

but when someone comes up with a statistic to measure the line drives against a pitcher and then removes the home runs from said statistic it tends to bring the pitchers numbers closer in line with other pitchers.

Also, just because the trends are closer to the median for pitchers does not mean the trends do not exist.

Now, skipping the technical side: How the hell can a hitter have control but the pitcher doesn't? This isn't t-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 24, 2007 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I never got

Pitchers can repeat (if not improve) groundball and HR rates, so obviously that proves they have a controlable say in what's going on. I don't understand the rationale that throws all that out the window when a linedrive is involved.

by slurve on Mar 24, 2007 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

Linedrives fluctuate year-by-year for pitchers, but LD% for hitters is fairly steady. This leads me to believe that hitters are either better or worse at making square contact, no matter who the pitcher is.

Even if that's not the case, LDs shouldn't be lumped in with FBs if you want a useful GB/FB number, since there's not a solid correlation between GB/FB ratio and LDs given up, so adding LDs into the FB category serves no purpose.

by limozeen on Mar 24, 2007 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't get you

Are you saying pitchers numbers fluctuate on average more than hitters? If it's a small amount more I could buy that based on a pitcher changing the pitches he throws. Hitters are more static IMO. That doesn't mean one has more control than the other.

Either you compare GB with FB where ground ball contains all ground balls and fly balls contain all types of fly balls - or you break them all up into separate categories and deal with them independently. Comparing all types of ground balls versus one type of fly ball (the weak type) seems crazy to me. It seems the act of someone that wants the numbers to fit a theory.

If your numbers don't fit your theory then find another theory.

by pedrophile on Mar 24, 2007 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Meh

Not really worth getting worked up about I guess.

by limozeen on Mar 24, 2007 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course it is, lol

by pedrophile on Mar 24, 2007 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great

Jered Weaver is going to be great. What else does this guy have to do? Or, for how long does he have to do it before he gets respect. He had probably the greatest college season of all time. Does that count? I say he is a top 3 pitcher in the AL this year.

Now, everybody can pile on me...say what you want. But, the hitters don't hit this guy. Simple as that.

by grandslam on Mar 23, 2007 8:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No WAY

he is top 3 this year. I'll take that bet 10 times out of ten. I'm not saying he isn't good, but he is not top 3.

by slurve on Mar 23, 2007 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Does that count?"

No.

by Goose on Mar 24, 2007 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

stranding runners

"But, the hitters don't hit this guy. Simple as that."

Not quite. I mean, he allowed enough baserunners last year to suggest he's not going to be a top 3 pitcher. The only reason he had such a low ERA was because so many of those baserunners didn't score. In fact, his LOB% was 86.2%

Now, pitchers have some control over whether or not baserunners end up scoring - Tom Glavine is consistently above-average in this respect. But <u>nobody</u> strands 85%+ of baserunners year in and year out. You need a lot of luck for that to happen and it's unlikely that Weaver can be that lucky two years in a row. He'll still be very effective even with an average LOB%, but certainly nothing close to a top-three pitcher in the AL.

by FI on Mar 24, 2007 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs