Add new comment

If you've seen him once, that's one more than me, Doc. But, even if I had seen him a dozen times, your visual take would bash mine over the head.
But, what whispers do I get when I look at the numbers?
1) In 2009, at age 22, in the Toronto org, (A+ and AA), he put up a 10.6 K/9 with a 1.87 ERA in 62.2 IPs. Though relievers' small samples tend to make their TTO rates erratic due to the small samples, the kid was whiffing double digits from day one. No clue about the velocity or motion change in regards to Ks ... but, the numbers show the kid had MAJOR control issues early on. Initially, as his control improved his K totals fell.
Year - HR / BB / K (per 9) - IP
2009 - 0.1 / 5.9 / 10.6 --- 62.2 - (A+ / AA)
2010 - 0.8 / 4.9 / 9.3 --- 76.2 - (AA)
2011 - 0.6 / 3.2 / 7.8 --- 59.2 - (AAA)
The control problems have subsided, but it's a clear tradeoff of Ks for the walks. Then, in 2012, he pitched in 7 different minor league towns.
2012 - 0.4 / 2.8 / 9.3 --- 68.0 - (AA / AAA)
2013 - 0.4 / 1.8 / 13.5 -- 20.0 - (AAA)
What amazes me about the 2012 season is that he pitched for TOR, SEA, NYY, and OAK all in the same year, (and hit both AA and AAA for almost everybody. It was about the least conducive circumstance to attempt to master your craft. The kid didn't care.
But, yes, this season is the first where he was posting 13 Ks per 9. One should shrug that off as above reality -- except, of course, that rate didn't drop when he got to Seattle.
Numerically, he looked like an easy MLB transition. But, early on, it seemed every body that reached base found a way to score, (even though he didn't have any gopher issues). I don't think it was "all" bad luck. I got the sense there was some major flaw that was probably getting magnified by bad luck. But, his H/9 wasn't all that bad.
Through July 19, he had allowed 28 hits total (only 2 dingers). Yet, 22 runs had scored. The 10 walks doesn't explain that. That's in about 23 innings. It's insanely bad luck.
That said - Doc says he shoould devastate righties and lefties are a danger. That is not what has happened. Oddly, he has faced a near equal number of hitters from both sides.
vs RHB - 77-PA; .299/.364/.418 (.782) --- BABIP = .487 -- 8-BB; 29-K - 1-HR
vs LHB - 81-PA; .162/.225/.216 (.441) --- BABIP = .250 -- 6-BB; 29-K - 1-HR
His TTO stats are nearly identical ... but how does ANYBODY run a .487 BABIP against while striking out every other hitter?!?
Okay, small splits are volatile. His overall line is still: .227/.293/.312 (.605).
Most of his troubles have (oddly) come at home, (.646 OPS in Safeco ... .561 on the road). The Safeco OPS is driven by a .415 BABIP.
Numerically, when he gets hit, it is not hard. No gopheritis. An aggregate ISO against of under 100.
For most of the year, if he gave up even one hit, he was giving up runs. Whether his run of bad luck was really luck or some subtle part of his total package, I have no clue. All I know for certain is over his last 10 outings his 'luck' changed, and while he has allowed a hit here and there, he hasn't allowed a run.
While the K rate will most likely drop back to around 10, (it's HARD to maintain double digit K rates over long periods), at the moment, I'm inclined to believe that whatever the root problem was that led to the inordinate number of runs given his peripherals was either luck (and luck so off the charts bad as very unlikely to return), or the underlying problem has been resolved as part of the development process.
I completely get why one would be antsy about a kid so far out of normal templates ... but then again, I personally believe that much of the "closer template" MLB mindset is cultural hogwash - where 90% of the closer decisions are based on the same faulty premises, so way more of it than should be is simply self-fulfilling prophecy. If you throw 100 mph - you get a shot to close ... if you fail, you get some additional opportunities - and some guys figure it out. If you're "off template", mostly you don't get a shot, and only close when the "real" closer is unavailable. And when you don't fit the mold and ARE given a chance, and are immediately successful, you are pegged as a "well, nobody else could do that". There can be only one Trevor Hoffman.
I think a lot of the problem is fear and ego based. No manager is going to be questioned for "trying" a guy who can throw 98 as a closer. If he fails, it was still a reasonable decision. It just didn't work out. But, if you go with a soft tosser and he fails, you were an idiot to try.
Things are better thanks to SABR. But that doesn't mean there are not still arenas where common wisdom prevents data from surfacing to even have enough to potentially challenge accepted wisdom.