Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Phillies Beat Lowe, Dodgers Bar-right-arrows



Community Projection: Miguel Batista

The thirteenth in a non-alphabetical and irregularly updated series of review pieces for each of the players we predicted last winter. (All entries are linked in the left-hand sidebar, below the Rotoworld stuff and the interviews.)

LL/USSM Community: 196 IP, 4.89 RA, 4.58 FIP (n=78)
Actual Line: 193 IP, 4.71 RA, 4.48 FIP

Closest Projection: willkris, 4.69 RA, 4.51 FIP

Once again, not too bad of a projection. Run-wise, at least; the community kind of whiffed on the strikeouts (4.8 K/9 projected, 6.2 K/9 actual), but overall, it came together pretty well. We only missed by one or two home runs.

Something I've been tossing around in my head from time to time over the past few days is the idea of a simple transaction classification system. At its most basic, a move is given both a number and letter score in the form of, say, 3B or 1D. A free agent signing, such as Batista, would be scored according to the following:

Numbers:

  1. great player
  2. good player
  3. decent player
  4. weak player
  5. horrible player
Letters:

A: way underpaid
B: somewhat underpaid
C: fair
D: somewhat overpaid
E: way overpaid

(Ed. note: stupid auto-formatting)

The system wouldn't tell us anything new, but its appeal is its simplicity - you could state your point in two characters, rather than a few sentences or paragraphs. America has a short attention span. Why not pander to it?

Anyway, the point of all this is that the Batista signing would've earned a 3D score last winter. I'd always liked him as a useful innings-eater who could make 30 starts and keep the ball on the ground, and while I wasn't wild about giving that kind of guy a $25m contract at the age of 36, the Mariners could've done a lot worse. I was happy to add a stable arm to an unstable rotation.

And, sure enough, Batista didn't disappoint. It took him a little while to get going, as his ERA stood at 6.98 in the middle of May, but from that point on he turned things around and became the most dependable starter of the bunch for the duration of the Mariners' playoff chase. Perhaps no effort of his was better than the seven shutout innings he turned in against the Angels on July 30th in a win that pulled the M's to within three games of the lead. Batista was picking up the slack for an underachieving ace, and for the first time in what seemed like ages, we had a pitcher we felt we could actually rely on.

Then Batista crapped the bed in back-to-back poor showings against the Twins and Angels, losses that dropped our postseason odds by a combined 17.1%. We probably deserved that for having to depend on Miguel flipping Batista to keep us in the hunt.

Ups and downs aside, when it was all said and done, Batista gave the Mariners everything they could've reasonable hoped for - 30+ starts, decent run prevention, and the kind of leadership that compels a guy to take Felix under his wing and make an eighth inning setup appearance out of the bullpen on his throw day. He was a success, in that he came exactly as advertised.

Sort of. But dig a little deeper than RA and FIP and you see this:

2006: 4.8 K/9, 1.84 GB/FB
2007: 6.2 K/9, 1.12 GB/FB

At the age of 36, after moving from the Mark-McGwire's-Biceps-At-25 National League to the Mark-McGwire's-Biceps-At-35 American League, Batista re-invented himself as a neutral pitcher capable of missing some bats. The end result was the same, but the path that got him there was radically different. More fly balls, more walks, fewer balls in play - this isn't normal for a guy with that much experience.

I don't think you can call it a "fluke", either. This kind of thing isn't some statistical accident; it indicates a change in approach. And I think it speaks to Batista's intellect that, by changing things up (however he did), he was able to find success in a much tougher league. It's an impressive accomplishment that I don't think the majority of pitchers could pull off, and it's one of the reasons I'm glad that Felix apparently considers him a bit of a teacher.

I can't tell you specifically what Batista was doing differently on the mound. I can speculate that, where he was trying to keep the ball out of the air in Chase Field, he was more comfortable with fly balls in Safeco, but that doesn't necessarily explain the huge jump in strikeout rate, so I'm not sure. Maybe Batista's preferred put-away pitch is a high fastball that he didn't like to throw in Arizona. I'm just guessing here.

What I can tell you is that, assuming Batista really was throwing differently in Seattle, that style isn't going to go anywhere. He's found success and he's presumably going to stick with it for as long as he can. While he may not offer the same profile as he did a year ago, he's still the same durable #4 that the Mariners can count on for ~190 innings of competent pitching. And that definitely has value.

I don't know that Batista strikes out 130 batters again next year, and he'll probably allow a few more homers, as his HR/FB was a little too low. But he should be able to find his way to a Safeco-aided ERA somewhere in the 4.4-4.7 range, which makes him a perfectly useful part for any team looking to make a run at the playoffs. Remember, the Mariners' problem isn't that they don't have good back-of-the-rotation starters; it's that they have good back-of-the-rotation starters trying to get by in the front. Batista looks a hell of a lot better on a staff with an actual #2. It's just up to Bavasi to find him.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Adrian Beltre
2B or not 2B, that is the ...

(I'm going to run away and hide now)

by Graham on Nov 30, 2007 3:34 PM PST   0 recs

Juan Pierre
4E?

This is fun!

by Nadingo on Nov 30, 2007 3:47 PM PST   0 recs

Colletti loves his E.
Interpret that as you wish.

by Jeff on Nov 30, 2007 3:49 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Me: 5A
I overvalue prospects

by Thingray on Nov 30, 2007 3:50 PM PST   0 recs

Not to fear
HoRam was a complete piece of #2.

by chrisisasavage on Nov 30, 2007 3:52 PM PST   0 recs

I always wondered why
Batista didn't K more people, his stuff was always pretty solid. I wonder if SafeCo had any part to play in him moving to more Ks/less GBs. Miguel seems like a smart fellow, perhaps he reasoned the extra flyballs wouldn't hurt him as much as he would gain from the extra K's?

by Matthew on Nov 30, 2007 4:33 PM PST   0 recs

I want to read
"The Avenger of Blood: A Plot Where Real Facts and Evidences Face Faith," but I can't stop laughing at the subtitle.

by Teej on Dec 1, 2007 5:41 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You can't call him overpaid
after last season. Maybe next year, maybe 09, but last year he earned his keep and I for one was pretty happy with the signing. Also, bitchin nickname.

by Mere Tantalisers on Nov 30, 2007 5:01 PM PST   0 recs

Certainly not anymore
at the time though, I would agree he was slightly overpaid. Now I think he's moved to slightly underpaid.

Hell, he's making 75% of what Francisco Cordero will be.

by Matthew on Nov 30, 2007 5:10 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Changeup!?
That was my fastball.

by ThundaPC on Nov 30, 2007 5:21 PM PST   0 recs

I wouldn't assume it's not.....
just a statistical accident, as you call it. Both the K/9 and GB/FB rates are closer to his career norms than the 2006 rates are. If you look at his career, his numbers have kind of bounced around a bit from year to year, and the last two seasons look like just more of the same. Hard to draw any conclusions when you're seeing some fluctuation like that.

It could be due to a change of approach, but there are a lot of other things that could contribute to that kind of swing in numbers as well, including a big dose of random occurence.

by nathaniel dawson on Nov 30, 2007 8:46 PM PST   0 recs

Zuh?
Batista's K/9 and GB/FB last year were substantially different than his career norms.

by Jeff on Dec 1, 2007 2:15 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

There is some truth to his point
Batista's GB/FB was definitely unusual, but his recent K rates are very inconsistent (from fangraphs):
  1. 6.20
  2. 4.80
  3. 6.51
  4. 4.71
  5. 6.61
  6. 5.46
There is a decent amount of fluctuation there.  Of course, in 2005 he was a full-time reliever, so we can throw that out the window.  2004 is the only other year in the AL, and he put up a paltry 4.71 K/9.  But 2002 and especially 2003 were well above 2006's 4.8 K/9, and each of those seasons were in Chase Field (well, I suppose a couple of those were in the BOB).

by david h on Dec 1, 2007 10:42 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Coming into 2007
Batista had more than 400 consecutive innings of low strikeouts as a starter. I think that's more meaningful than it is random chance. But I've been wrong before, so...

by Jeff on Dec 1, 2007 11:54 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

He was a closer in 2005
His K rate is going to go up pitching solely in relief.

by G_ on Dec 1, 2007 9:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Fair enough.
For nearly 800 innings as a starter between 2002-2006, Batista was a pretty heavy groundball pitcher. His lowest individual season GB/FB over that span was 1.69. For the final ~400 of these innings, he had K/9 of 4.8.

In 2007, Batista posted the lowest full-season GB/FB of his career, and saw his strikeouts jump up by 29% despite moving to the American League.

Both strikeouts and groundballs are things over which pitchers exert a lot of control from year to year. Based on this, I think it's far more likely that Batista was doing something differently than it is that his season was the result of random noise.

by Jeff on Dec 1, 2007 8:32 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I will certainly agree....
he seems to pitch differently as a reliever than he does as a starter, except for this year. I don't know if that should be too surprising, as that's somewhat common for all pitchers.

Things are pretty clouded with him, though, because he's spent so much of his career in different situations from year to year. 8 teams in 13 years (really 9, as he was with Arizona twice), shuttling between starting and relieving. All the year-to-year variation we see in his record could have been more the result of pitching in different situations than it was an intentional change in style or focus.

Or maybe not. Maybe he has tried to change the way he pitches to better take advantage of the particular situation he finds himself in. But that would be pretty unusual -- I think most pitchers would just go with what they know and what's worked for them in the past, without trying to alter their approach.

He's a hard one to try to figure out. Looking at his career as a whole, it's hard to get a good feel for him as a pitcher other than saying that since he's turned 30, no matter how he's done it or where he's found himself, he's been one pretty dang reliable pithcer.

by nathaniel dawson on Dec 1, 2007 9:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Ooops
Didn't quite complete my thought there, did I?

His K rate for his career is 5.73, last year 6.2, 2006 was 4.8. 2007 was much closer to his career rate than 2006.

I tried to figure out his career GB/FB rate from the MLB site (only since 1999), although I'm not sure I trust those numbers because they seem a little wonky. It came out to 1.14 in 2007, 1.36 for his career, 1.81 on 2006. So he was actually over in 2006 by about the same amount as he was under in 2007. So his career rate just about splits the difference between 2006 and 2007. My bad there, I was kind of fooled just looking at the raw numbers.

He has certainly shown more variance in his results throughout his career than most pitchers, but nothing so out of the ordinary that it couldn't just be random occurence combined with the different pitching situations he's been in.

by nathaniel dawson on Dec 1, 2007 8:45 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Interesting little toy you made, Jeff
As for Beluga Tits, I think his swerving repertoire of erratic cut fastballs has a twofold effect similar to the knuckler.  It's difficult for the pitcher to spot... and it's difficult for the hitter to spot.  Those cutters, which BTW always seem to be up in the zone (typical strikeout pitcher territory), make him a maddening pitcher to watch when he's off (not that his Traschelian approach to pitching with men on base helps), and make him a tough pitcher to hit and an effective starter when he's able to locate.

He's always been an inconsistent pitcher, quite likely because of his erratic command of the cutter.

I admit I'm not trying to make any points with these random observations.  It's just that he's an interesting case, seemingly the anti-Washburn of overpaid back end SPs.

by Gomez on Dec 1, 2007 3:27 PM PST   0 recs

Yeah, you hit it on the nail.
I think Batista was the one of the most frustrating pitchers to watch -- when HoRam sucked, it was expected, so not as frustrating per se.

Especially those innings where he walked the bases full of Nick Puntos...with nobody out...

by redwolf75 on Dec 1, 2007 4:55 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'm not saying he was frustrating overall,
I'm agreeing with Gomez in that he could be the most frustrating when he didn't have his "stuff."

by redwolf75 on Dec 1, 2007 5:14 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Sackpaste_small
VACATION PICTURES
Small
UPDATED x2: Football This Saturday

Recent FanPosts

Small
Fall/Winter League updates
Small
Grand Moff-Topic Post of the Day
Small
OTFPOTD 10!/7! edition
Small
Sweet, sweet schadenfreude
Small
10/8 OTDOTD: The chronicles of Nate Silver's television career
Small
LCS poll
Nolamarinergirl1_small
OFFTOP of the Moment 10.07.02008
Small
OTFPOTD: October 6th Early Edition (Now in wintergreen flavor)
Small
Mysportslessons.com
Smell-the-glove_small
Slightly Hungover OTFPOTD for 10/4

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Sexy People

Hmssurprise_small Graham

Small Matthew

Small Jeff

ad

Site Meter