Has Cashman Improved Yanks Pitching In 2009?
An e-mail came in to WasWatching.com HQ today from a “reader” that brought cause for some further analysis. I say “reader” – and not “fan” – since the e-mail started off by calling me a Yankees-hater, and some other less than sweet things, because I’ve been critical (my word, not theirs) of Brian Cashman’s work as Yankees G.M.
Now, that aside, in attempt to support their “presentation,” the author of the e-mail claimed that Cashman, this season, has built the “best pitching staff [in New York] since 2003.” And, that remark got my attention.
Why? Simple…I wanted to know if it was true or not. And, this is what I found:
Number of “Quality Starts” -
2009 Yankees: 76
2003 Yankees: 96
Winner: 2003 Yankees
Number of Starting Pitchers with 200+ IP -
2009 Yankees: 2
2003 Yankees: 4
Winner: 2003 Yankees
Number of Pitchers with “RSAA > 0 and INNINGS PITCHED >= 50″ -
via the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia…
2003 Yankees RSAA IP 1 Mike Mussina 23 214.2 2 Mariano Rivera 21 70.2 T3 Chris Hammond 10 63 T3 Roger Clemens 10 211.2 T5 Andy Pettitte 8 208.1 T5 Jose Contreras 8 71 7 David Wells 5 213 8 Antonio Osuna 3 50.2
2009 Yankees RSAA IP 1 C.C. Sabathia 26 230 2 Mariano Rivera 19 66.1 3 Phil Hughes 13 86 T4 Alfredo Aceves 8 84 T4 A.J. Burnett 8 207 6 Andy Pettitte 5 194.2
Winner: 2003 Yankees
I could keep going…but the answer will keep being the same: The pitching staff of the 2009 Yankees is nowhere close to being as good as the pitching staff of the 2003 Yankees.
Of course, this leads to the question: Where does this current Yankees pitching staff sit – compared to other recent Yankees pitching staffs? To address that, I returned to the CBE which provided this leader board:
TEAM YEAR RSAA IP
1 Yankees 1998 102 1456.2
2 Yankees 1997 78 1467.2
3 Yankees 2002 76 1452
4 Yankees 2001 71 1451.1
5 Yankees 1996 60 1440
6 Yankees 2000 54 1424.1
7 Yankees 2003 50 1462
8 Yankees 1999 40 1439.1
9 Yankees 2007 30 1446
10 Yankees 2008 28 1441.2
11 Yankees 2009 19 1450
12 Yankees 2005 -11 1430.2
13 Yankees 2006 -14 1443.2
14 Yankees 2004 -41 1443.2
It’s clear: This current pitching staff, built by Cashman, is better than the 2004-2005-2006 disaster pitching staffs built by Brian Cashman. But, this year’s model is not as good as the Yankees staffs from the two seasons before it (2008 and 2007) – in terms of saving runs above average. And, it’s not nearly as good as those 1996-2003 pitching staffs featured in Yankeeland.
The “reader” did not share their basis for this claim that Cashman has built the “best pitching staff [in New York] since 2003.” Maybe they made it up? But, anyone who wants to make that claim is ignoring the stats and the facts and just blowing nonsense out their pie hole.
In any event, thanks for the e-mail – as it helped establish another reason why those who want to credit Brian Cashman for a job well-done this season are just pushing hype.
Firstly, I’m sure some of that is skewed by Wang. The pitching staff from May on has been very, very good. But that is beyond the point. The team won 103 games this year. The GM did a good job. Just deal with it.
@ yagottagotomo1:
Wang’s stats don’t count? Are we allowed to just pick the stats that we want to include now…? (That’s what you would say to me, if I wanted to look at some stats while ignoring others, no?)
No, you are right, that is why I said it was beside the point, you cant just take it out (although you have to admit that a whopping -24 RSAA from your previous ace is a bit out of the ordinary). I just cannot believe that you cannot give one inch on Cashman, after the team won 103 games. Even if they win the World Series, you will never ever give an inch. This is why people get upset with you Steve. It has little to do with your negative outlook. Heck, I read the blog for that, because it helps give me perspective sometimes when compared to most of the fanboy stuff out there. But you are just so stubborn on a few issues sometimes, that it is frustrating.
@ yagottagotomo1:
I’ve given credit more than an inch in the past – such as when I wrote this:
“Brian Cashman has value. He understands New York. He can navigate through the Yankees organization. He’s polished. He can take a punch. There’s nothing wrong with having Brian Cashman as the face of the front office – and being the person on point between the owners, the team, the media and the fans.”
Via: http://waswatching.com/2008/10/01/why-bringing-cashman-back-was-a-mistake/
And, I still feel that way. However, that said, in terms of being able to build a champion, I think he’s a horsebleep G.M. whose only skill is the size of his owner’s checkbook.
If someone wants to have a different opinion, that’s fine.
I meant giving an inch as to team building, obviously. This is a futile discussion, which is what makes it so frustrating. Enjoy your Cashman hate. It looks like he is going to be around for a looong time.
Steve Lombardi wrote:
That’s what you did in one of the entries you linked to.
Steve Lombardi wrote:
Yep, because Watson and Michael never bought in FA’s like Boggs, Cone, Key, Rogers, Tartabull, etc… Or made brilliant acquisitions like Spike Owen, Terry Mulholland, Hideki Irabu, etc
@ Raf:
The teams that Michael and Watson built went on to win several World Championships. How many teams, built by Cashman – and not including a cadre of players inherited from Michael and Watson – have gone on to win a ring?
First of all, saying it’s the best staff since 2003 does NOT imply it’s better than 2003’s staff, nor is anyone seriously making this claim, so comparing this staff to 2003 is fatuous, at best.
As for the evaluation of the staff compared to 2007 and 2008, I’m a firm believer in being able to substantiate your opinions with evidence, but I also believe that you have to check the reality of your use of a statistic with reasonable qualitative evaluation. The RSAA numbers regarding 2007, 2008 and 2009 are 99 44/100 % bullspit, and I’ll explain why:
Aside from the fact that your talking a difference of 10 runs, with the inherent error bars within such a small gap…
The rotations (# of starts in parentheses):
2007: Pettitte(34), Wang(30), Mussina(27), Clemens(17), Hughes(13), Igawa(12), Matt DeSalvo (6), Tyler Clippard (6), Darryl Rasner (6), other assorted flotsam and jetsam(11).
2008: Mussina(34), Pettitte(33), Wang(15), Rasner(20), Ponson(15), Joba (12), Kennedy (9), Hughes (8), Pavano (7), mixed nuts (9)
2009: CC (34), AJ (33), Pettitte (32), Joba (31), Mitre (9), Wang (9), Hughes (7), Gaudin (6), Aceves (1). That’s it; only 9 guys started for the Yanks in 2009.
The 2009 rotation is the best of the three seasons.
Aces: CC is better than Wang (2007), and as good as Moose (2008)
Pettittes: 2009 Andy is as good as 2007 Andy and better than 2008 Andy
#3 men: AJ is easily better than Moose (2007) and, if not better than the Wang/Joba combo in 2008, almost as good, and certainly more durable (imagine that!) (AJ has a higher QS% than the Wang/Joba combo, due primarily to Joba’s limited pitch counts in his first few starts; his QS% was higher than Wang’s alone, however. The RSAA numbers here are skewed by AJ handful of hammerings, 4 starts in which he got blown out in 4 or 5 innings.)
#4 man: As erratic as Joba was in 2009, not quite as good overall as Clemens/Hughes (2007), but better than Rasner (2008)
#5 men: A wash. None of the teams were good here. You think Wang and Mitre (2009) stunk? They did. But no worse than Igawa/DeSalvo/Clippard/Rasner in 2007, or Hughes/Kennedy/Ponson/Pavano last year. Go back and look at what you wrote about those pitchers in those years, if you don’t believe me, Steve.
The only comparison in which the 2009 staff comes off as truly weaker is the #4 slot in comparison to 2007, in which Clemens could hardly go 6 innings a start, and Hughes had, what, 5 good starts, and the rest were mediocre, and neither one was able to hold the slot for the whole season without getting hurt.
Look at the numbers of starts given to pitchers who have no business being in the rotation of a contender, but were pressed into emergency service. Hell, just look at the sheer damn numbers of pitchers used as starters. Isn’t it blatantly obvious that the weaker a rotation is, the more you have to scramble to find somebody, anybody who can fill a slot? Doesn’t it mean anything that this is the first rotation in the entire history of the team to feature as many as four pitchers who made at least 31 starts? The rotation is as good or better in 2009 than it was in either of the previous two years.
On to the pen:
Closer: Mariano is Mariano is Mariano; there’s very little difference in his performance over the 3 seasons.
Top setup man: Farnsworth gave way to Joba in 2007; got traded in 2008, with Joba getting some of that back after he got hurt, but a lot of it going to Veras and then Bruney. Could anyone not think four months of Hughes is not an improvement over those combos, when the entire year is considered? I didn’t think so.
Top lefty: 2007…who is it? Villone? Myers? Henn? 2008: Traber was awful; they traded for Marte and he was awful, and finally Coke showed some promise in the last month. 2009: Can anyone seriously claim that Coke this year wasn’t better than those combos? No, they really can’t.
Bulk middle relief:
2007: Bruney/Proctor (before the trade)/Edwar/Vizcaino….not very inspiring. Bruney did well. Proctor was mediocre.
2008: Hawkins/Veras/Edwar/Ohlendorf/Giese…anything terribly worthwhile there? Not after Veras and Edwar collapsed, and Giese…Giese was fine for awhile, then got exposed. If you think Giese was anything other than a pitcher who was able to deceive hitters for awhile until the league caught up with him, let me ask you this, when the Yanks let him go, did anyone pick him up? No, he’s in Japan now. Case closed.
2009: When you’ve said Aceves and Robertston, you win this category for the 2009 squad without even considering Bruney, Tomko, Albaladejo and Melancon.
So…exactly where are the 2007 and 2008 staffs better? They ain’t better at “Ace starter”. Andy and Mo are the same. They ain’t better at #3, or #5. 2007 is a little better at #4. They’re worse at #1 setup, worse at #1 lefty, and worse in middle/long relief.
No, I’m sorry, this staff is certainly better than the last two, and there ain’t a GM in baseball who’d say otherwise. In this case, to the extent the statistic says the 2007 and 2008 staffs are better, the statistic is lying.
It ain’t nonsense out the “pie hole”. It’s the truth.
Just ask yourself this: how many pitchers on each if the three staffs got significant numbers of key innings where you said to yourself “Oboy, I don’t feel good about this; I hope he comes through”, instead of “Oh, good, he’s pitching. We’re all right.” There are at least 7 guys in the all right category this year: CC, AJ, Andy, Mo, the two Phils, and Aceves. 2007 or 2008? Not so much.
===============================
Does this mean the staff will pitch great in the postseason of 2009? Nope. CC has a bad history in the playoffs. Andy is older. AJ is a complete unknown. The 4th slot is unsettled. Is the league starting to catch up the Hughes as a setup guy throwing 95-6?
Again: we have to wait and see.
@ Evan3457:
You calling RSAA a liar?
@ Evan3457:
Are these stats more honest for you?
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/cE4M3
again, in these, 2007 and 2008 trump 2009.
@ Evan3457:
Or, how about these stats:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/s7ENj
where 2009=2007 and where 2008 is better than 2009.
Let’s just say that in this one case, I think the 10 run gap it shows is very misleading.Steve Lombardi wrote:
Let’s just say that in this one case, I think the 10 run gap it shows is very misleading.
Subjectively, I’m a heck of a lot more confident in this staff than I was vs. the Indians in 2007.
Subjectively, I could be kidding myself, of course. I’m a 100% believer, in waiting, and watching to see what does actually happen.
@ Evan3457:
Or, better yet, how about these stats:
http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/s2sFd
where, once again, 2009=2007 and where 2008 is better than 2009.
Steve Lombardi wrote:
Again, it’s the context. Did you ever really believe in Farnsworth, Veras, Ramirez, Giese or Albaladejo? If not, are their stats worth citing?
For the 2009 staff, the same with Melancon, and to a lesser extent, Bruney. Bruney at least came through big-time in a handful of key games.
Look; examine the comparison of Clemens/Hughes (2007) vs. Joba (2009) in the #4 slot. By any slot you name, Clemens/Hughes will look better; ERA, ERA+, RSAA, FIP. But, qualitatively, were they really much, if any, better? I don’t remember feeling exceptionally confident when they started. Not much worse or better than when Joba was regular in the rotation, before they started to futz around with his innings.
RSAA and ERA+ says the #4 slot in 2007 was better. Same thing with Veras/Ramirez (2008) vs. Coke (2009)
Do you really believe the stats are right about those comparisons? Veras inherent wildness? Ramirez’ inability to pitch in any kind of a tight spot?
Think about it.
Steve Lombardi wrote:
That still doesn’t excuse the bad moves and mistakes that they’ve made.
Anyway, why does Watson get any credit, he inherited a cadre of players from Michael, didn’t he?
@ Raf:
Stick was the GM from Aug. 1990 thru 1995
Watson was the GM from 1996 thru Feb, 1998.
Watson’s boys – and some of Stick’s – went on to win rings in 1998, 1999 and 2000. (The ring in 1996 was mostly Stick’s guys.)
@ Evan3457:
At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding and the production is detailed by the stats. Looking at names, resumes, and weighing feelings leads to subjective reasoning, no?
Steve Lombardi wrote:
That’s true, but it should still be done as a reality check against selective use of statistics, and cherry-picking data, endpoints, and qualifiers. In the same manner than no one really scouts players via high school and college stats (“moneyball scouting”) without sending a scout to actually look and give a subjective evaluation.
Steve, all of the numbers you just quoted were pretty meaningless, unless you believe the Yankees pitched better this year than in 1998. Total number of pitchers with a certain ERA+ is pretty meaningless. I would think you would want to be somewhere in the middle of those lists (meaning you have steady group of contributors, not a revolving door).
Steve Lombardi wrote:
And Cashman was GM from Feb 98 to present. Same thing. Guys Cashman, Watson & Michael acquired all won rings.
Hmm…for some reason, the system won’t let me post some Tiny URLs of my searches at Baseball Reference, so let me suggest that you, Steve, try any of the following 4 searches for yourself.
IP 50 or more, ERA+ 110 or better
IP 50 or more, ERA+ 120 or better
IP 50 or more, (H + BB)/IP 1.25 or lower (That’s WHIP)
IP 50 or more, K/BB ratio 2.0 or better
I would think any of those would be more significant than the 10 inning minimums you cite in your four searches. You’ll never guess what they show…