|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 30, 2021 15:39:38 GMT -5
I'm glad the Giants agreed to an arbitration signing with John Brebbia, who had been mentioned as a non-tender candidate.
Brebbia's ERA last season was an inflated 5.89, but his expected ERA based on how the ball was hit was a highly-acceptable 3.60. John yielded an ungainly .316 batting average, but based on how the ball was hit, it would have been expected to be just .244. Despite his bad luck last season, John has a 3.40 career ERA. His WHIP is just 1.15. I would have been disappointed to lose him.
|
|
|
I'm glad
Dec 1, 2021 9:33:30 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 1, 2021 9:33:30 GMT -5
Brebbia gave up 25 hits 4 of which were homeruns in just 18.1 innings. That's not bad luck, that's bad pitching.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2021 15:31:15 GMT -5
Baseball is inherently a very unfair game. How many times have we seen a guy hit the heck out of a ball, only to see it go right to the shortstop or center fielder? How many times have we seen a hard-hit ball die at the fence rather than clearing it? How many times have we seen a ground ball hit so softly the batter couldn't be retired? How many times have we seen a softly-hit ball fall in between three fielders? How many times have we seen a strike called a ball or a ball called a strike?
There is a lot of luck involved in a baseball game, but we hope it evens out over the course of the full season. But when a reliever, for instance, pitches a limited number of innings, that luck occasionally doesn't even come close to evening out. It's one of the reasons relievers, in particular, sometimes see their ERA's vary wildly from season to season.
Smart baseball people such as Mr. Zaidi recognize this, and it no doubt was part of the reason Brebbia was re-signed rather than non-tendered, as had been predicted by some sources. Care to make a gentlemen's bet that Brebbia's ERA is in the three's or below next season, Matt? You say he pitched poorly last season; I say he didn't pitch as badly as his results. If you're right, his ERA could fall by 1.89 runs and you would win the bet.
Brebbia will be 35 years old before the middle of next season. He might simply be done. He could improve his results tremendously, and you would still win. Want to put your gentlemanliness where your keyboard is? Based on what you wrote, I would be making a bad bet even if I put the over/under at 4.50 instead of 4.00. His ERA is projected at 4.03 by Fan Graphs. I'm taking a big chance here. I'm probably making a bad bet (although likely not a horrible one).
But I'm trying to make a point. I'm giving you what looks like a no-brainer bet, but I don't believe the bet is nearly as one-sided as you likely do. The only things I've got going for me is the Statcast evidence that batters didn't hit Brebbia nearly as hard as his ERA indicated, and Mr. Zaidi likely wouldn't have re-signed him if he expected his ERA to be over four. Mr. Zaidi didn't gamble even a million dollars on Brebbia, but he did give him a vote of confidence in the form of a modest contract.
What I want to know is, why did you say it wasn't bad luck, it was bad pitching? How closely did you examine his pitching? I see you as a person who doesn't search hard for evidence, and I see this as an example of that flaw.
By the way, the key to who wins the bet will likely be whether John can keep the ball in the park. Not all the signs point to my winning the bet, but I made it one-sided to try to illustrate a point.
|
|
|
I'm glad
Dec 1, 2021 15:51:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 1, 2021 15:51:28 GMT -5
I "examined" his pitching closer than you did, I watched every game. Besides that, giving up 4 homeruns in 18.1 innings is very poor. That means he didnt get hurt by little bloops that fell in, he got hurt by balls being hit hard. Now, that said, he did have a good strikeout to inning ratio, and he didn't walk many, but obviously he didn't pitch well in between those instances. Believe it or not, Rog, I don't generate a negative feeling about a player if they played well. At a certain point last season I felt negatively about Brebbia coming in the game.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2021 16:02:17 GMT -5
The Giants are definitely signing Cobb and Wood.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2021 18:34:12 GMT -5
So for about $130 million, the Giants have replaced the two Brandon's, Wood, DeSclafani and Gausman for an average of two seasons. Man for man, with the exception of Cobb for Gausman. Last season the Giants paid these five "positions" about $60 million. This year they will pay them about $67 million. Would we prefer Gausman to Cobb? Of course. (I wish we had them both.) But the Giants essentially improved or rehabilitated these five players, then re-signed four of the five and signed a creditable replacement for the fifth -- all at a cost in 2022 of only about $7 million more than in 2021. That's value!
What the Giants haven't done is replace Johnny Cueto. Who knows? Maybe they'll sign him to a small contract. (They're already paying his buyout for this season.) Likely they'll sign two or three more guys on the cheap. Possibly they'll splurge and sign Stroman. They might trade for a less expensive option.
I guess for an organization that supposedly didn't anticipate this year's free agent market and got left behind, they're in pretty decent shape.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 5:02:12 GMT -5
You seem to fail to understand pitching luck, Matt. In the case of Brebbia, he got no breaks on potential homers. Whereas most pitchers give up several more potential homers than actual homers, John gave up a homer on each of his four potentials. In addition, most of his homers came with runners on. Finally, despite the ball being hit only about average against him, John yielded a .382 Batting Average on Balls In Play. That shows a lot of bad luck.
I'm not saying Brebbia pitched GREAT, but he pitched much better than his results. As for your opinion of him, you were judging him by the results he got, not by how hard the ball was hit. You likely had little if any idea how good or bad his luck was. After all, you're a FAN, and as fans we tend to overreact to things.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 5:10:46 GMT -5
Even a starting pitcher can be affected a lot by pitching luck in a season. I already mentioned that both in 2018 and last season, based on how the ball was hit against him, Marcus Stroman projected a 4.33 ERA. In 2018 he had bad luck, and his actual ERA was a horrendous 5.54. Last season he had good luck, and his ERA was an impressive 3.02.
There is often a difference between how well a pitcher throws a ball and the results he gets. When we pay attention to projected ERA's as well as actual ERA's, we put ourselves in a better position to judge pitchers. You don't think the Giants use this type of analysis, Matt? They use it, and they also look at pitchers who may benefit from changing their pitch mix. The Giants have benefited from acquiring pitchers who pitched better than their ERA's made it appear they did; they have benefited from acquiring pitchers whose mechanics they could change for better results; and they've acquired pitchers whose pitch mix they could improve to get better performances. And of course, they have also put together a team with excellent chemistry.
I believe the Giants have quickly become baseball's best organization, and they understand things some of us here aren't even aware of.
|
|
|
I'm glad
Dec 2, 2021 11:30:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 2, 2021 11:30:16 GMT -5
You seem to fail to understand pitching luck, Matt. In the case of Brebbia, he got no breaks on potential homers. Whereas most pitchers give up several more potential homers than actual homers, John gave up a homer on each of his four potentials. In addition, most of his homers came with runners on. Finally, despite the ball being hit only about average against him, John yielded a .382 Batting Average on Balls In Play. That shows a lot of bad luck. I'm not saying Brebbia pitched GREAT, but he pitched much better than his results. As for your opinion of him, you were judging him by the results he got, not by how hard the ball was hit. You likely had little if any idea how good or bad his luck was. After all, you're a FAN, and as fans we tend to overreact to things. I understand the idea behind "pitching luck" but if you're giving up an average of 2 homeruns per 9 innings you're not fooling hitters. Could he have balanced out his season if he had more appearances? Most likely. Brebbia has been around for a while and had been successful before, so continuing the awful pace he was on was not likely to continue. Just as if someone who's been red hot will not likely continue their pace either. As I said before, I watched the games, I probably watched just about every inning of every game..what I saw from Brebbia is a pitcher who had a very hittable fastball that seemed to always find it's way into the fat part of the plate. While I'd expect him to have a better season next year, I question whether he can be a valuable part of the bullpen in 2022. Amongst the bullpen pitchers I left last season thinking we have some solid arms to makeup some of the bullpen for next season, John Brebbia was definitely not one of them. I think we should aim to improve our bullpen with young arms, not bring back veterans who struggled mightily. Leone, Watson, Rodgers, McGee, Garcia, Alvarez and Doval performed well last season, but they were often put into roles last that really wasn't the best spots to use them in. With all this money that was freed up, I thought getting another late inning arm would have benefited the others from not having to save games or stop rallies if that wasn't really the best situation to use them in. John Brebbia doesn't fit that arm we need. In other words..Brebbia is a 6th inning guy, in a bullpen of mostly 7th inning guys. We need an 8th or 9th inning guy.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 13:22:33 GMT -5
Brebbia gave up only four "barrels" last season. "Barrels" are defined by exit velocity and launch angle, and they are the balls that by far most often go for home runs. But because parks are different and because fences are shorter in right and left than in center field, not all "barrels" become home runs. Each of John's four barrels left the park last season, even though his RATE of barrels was right at his career average. Hence, John gave up 2.0 homers per nine innings compared to his career average of 1.1. If only two of those four balls had left the park, his ERA would have been much better.
Likewise, despite not having the ball hit harder than over his career, John gave up an horrendous .382 Batting Average on Balls In Play, one tick away from being 100 points higher than his career average of .283.
Clearly John didn't pitch great, but he pitched clearly better than his horrendous 5.89 ERA indicated. If Mr. Zaidi didn't agree with my analysis, why would he have re-signed Brebbia instead of non-tendering him.
Like you, I don't see John as an 8th- or 9th-inning guy, but he does have a 3.81 career ERA in the 8th, 2.85 in the 9th, and 3.00 in extra innings. Assuming Camilo Doval comes through this season, the Giants have three very nice late-inning guys in Camilo, McGee and Rogers.
I believe Rogers is underrated here. Gabe Kapler believes Tyler is among the best relievers in the game, and who are we to disagree? Regarding clutch stats, Tyler's OPS was .442 with two outs and RISP, .579 in late and close situations, .396 in tie games, and .506 in games within one run. Keep in mind I'm expecting him to regress a bit this season, but he was REALLY good in 2021.
I love your idea of adding young arms to the bullpen, but teams also don't like to give them up, since they cost much less. I expect most of the current Giants relievers to regress, so I fully agree with your idea of improving the bullpen. I agree with you in emphasizing young, less expensive, more retainable arms, but I would mostly look for value, wherever it arises.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 13:24:19 GMT -5
By the way, the Giants aren't paying Brebbia like a late-inning reliever. He's mostly in the bullpen for depth, although he might provide some upside as well. But I see him as a good reliever, not a great one. Just not NEARLY as bad as he appeared last season.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 19:10:14 GMT -5
Matt, you said Brebbia has a very hittable fastball. Actually, even with his poor overall results last season, batters had only a .308 SLG against the pitch last season. It was his slider that he got killed on. Going back to 2019, his previous season, Brebbia's fastball was fine, and his slider was excellent.
Perhaps the Giants are working on a change up with John. He has hardly thrown the pitch in his career. If he could come up with a good change, he COULD become an impact reliever.
I really do think last season was an aberration though. Up until last season, John's slider had been quite good. Last season the pitch was indeed hit hard, and his poor luck compounded the problem. But while you were highly unimpressed with his fastball, he actually did fine with the pitch. Brebbia's expected SLG against his fastball was just .274 and his actual was .308 . By comparison, Logan Webb's expected SLG against his two-seamer was .382, and his actual was .392.
Brebbia's sample size was quite small, of course, but his two biggest problems last season don't seem to be his fastball, but rather his slider deserted him, and his luck with the pitch was even worse.
One thing we have to realize as observers is that we're watching a lot of players, we can be overly influenced by a specific event, and our memories are less than perfect. You seem to have thought that Brebbia's fastball was the problem, but in reality it was his slider, exacerbated by poor luck. Brebbia has lost velocity on his fastball each season though, so it's something to watch in the future. But so far his fastball has been better than Webb's. It's Logan's slider that has been his killer pitch.
|
|