Mussina has been besieged by a perfect storm of misfortune and performance.
As a Yankees fan it is simply killing me to watch Mussina get lit up. 19 ER in 9.2 IP while trying to snare the Wild Card will not endear him to Yankee fans. How has he fallen so far?
After a surprisingly good 2006 (at least in my mind) he has regressed in his fortunes as well as his performance. To date he is 8-10 with a 5.53 ERA and 1.49 WHIP. This line was produced by a 34% hit rate and a 64% strand rate, so it is largely luck induced.
That said though, his expected ERA is still a lofty 4.46. This is right in line with his actual ERA from 2004 and 2005, which were 4.60 and 4.42 respectively. That is to say that 2006 was not an accurate reflection of the state of his career.
Surprisingly, Mussina’s expected ERA has consistently been well below his actual ERA:
So we cannot really say that Mussina’s ERA is the result of misfortune. But in the last month he has simply been beset by misfortune. In the last month his hit rate is 41% and his strand rate is a mere 54%. These are both the result of luck. he has a very solid 3.6 K/BB ratio during that time. However, for the season his K rate is way off his career norm:
So he is out of the rotation and deservedly so. What of Ian Kennedy? It is hard to think that he isn’t being rushed, but the Yanks don’t really have a choice, and he can’t do worse right now than Mussina most likely. The thought of that though is a sobering one for Yankee fans.
Kennedy is in his first full year in the minors after his selection in the first round. His rapid ascendancy is supported by very good numbers overall. At three levels he has pitched very well: 12-3 1.91 ERA 146 IP 163 K and 50 BB. The BB rate is a bit high but all else looks good.
His BABIP with Tampa is a bit on the low side at 2.80, but that could be chalked up to his just being better than the competition. At Scranton it was .264 which is most likely a bit on the lucky side. With Trenton it was .234, very lucky.
This is a problem with many minor league callups. Talent aside, the player gets noticed when he is in the midst of a superlative season. Yet in many (most?) instances the performance is driven in part by good fortune, which disappears on arrival in the Majors.
This appears to be a significant possibility in Kennedy’s case. Given his rapid rise and stats that are in part buttressed by a healthy dose of good fortune in at least two of his three minor league stops (and the two highest stops to boot) there is a good possibility of a poor performance.
Of course, who knows what can happen in a short time period. As we preach here though, we have to focus on the process not the result.
Scouts aren’t enamored with Kennedy. John Sickels’ compares him to Justin Wayne (ugh.) Keith Law, Director of Scouting for ESPN, gives the following report:
“[He’s] not in the same class [as Hughes and Chamberlain], but a very good prospect. He’s a pitchability RHP, I’d say. Average stuff, very compact delivery (almost like you could put him in a phone booth and he could pitch without touching the sides), repeats it extremely well, has plus command and great feel. Now, to me, that’s a 4th starter, maybe a #3 if the command/feel are really top-notch.”
There are some tacit communication dervied issues here which do not bode well, but otherwise this appears to be the general impression of Kennedy and an accurate one.
Overall the picture is mixed, but not terribly encouraging. Fantasy generals should steer clear for now of Kennedy. If you are in a keeper league feel free to pick him up, or if you need to gamble. But if you are in a dogfight or in a mixed league you should steer clear.
articleId=’15364′;
2 responses so far ↓
1 Corey // Aug 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Patrick,
Your assertion the Kennedy is not as good as his numbers indicate and there is a need not to be results-oriented is a valid point, one that many GM’s should take to heart.
However, in this article and in the Bush/Morris article a couple of days ago, you implicitly connected past luck metrics with future luck metrics. As you know, a player’s past luck has (for the most part) nothing to do with his future luck. For example, let’s assume a pitcher has a true BABIP of .310. In his first 50 innings, he posts a .280 BABIP. Over the long-run, his career BABIP will be .310. It gets there not by “correcting” for the first 50 innings, but increasing the sample of innings to the point where the first 50 samples are insignificant.
In these two cases, you implied a “correction” was due. This was especially evident in this article in the following sentence: “Yet in many (most?) instances the performance is driven in part by good fortune, which disappears on arrival in the Majors.”
A player’s good fortune may disappear when he gets to the majors, but this has very little to do with his luck in the minors.
2 Patrick DiCaprio // Aug 30, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Corey,
I don’t mean luck in terms of a dice roll, as I pointed out in prior posts. When I say “luck” I am referring to a player for a short term outperforming what his skills say he should be.
Very few times will you see a guy get a 28% hit rate in April and then get 30% for five months. We aren’t looking at seasons or careers (as you refer to) but to the short sample size of one season.
But the issue is what happens when the corrected(ing) stats are translated? Ron Shandler and BaseballHQ have done a lot of research on these topics and I recommend reveiw of their research for more info.
Even if player X has a BABIP of 28%, if he will normalize to 30% for five months as opposed to a scattered correction, that will inure to the detriment of his average. It is an issue of how the changed results will affect the actual stats that we use in fantasy.
A 28% hit rate and a 30% hit rate is no small difference in expected batting average. But as I pointed out in the Ramon Hernandez article, it is not immutable that a guy will regress, often there are actual reasons for it.
An interesting rejoinder though. It is not “luck” in terms of chance but in terms of his performing over his actual skill level in addition to regressing to the mean.
Leave a Comment