Porcello at it again

[Antrat]

Most teams would kill to have a Porcello at the back end of their rotation.

[Nastradamus]

Exactly. He'll never be a top 2, maybe even 3, but he's a killer in that 4 spot. Makes every start and gives us a chance to win most of them. Take out that Texas start where he let up 8 in 1 IP(which I think is fair because a loss is a loss) and the rest of the year he's a 4.1 ERA guy with about a 3.5 FIP.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

His BABIP is 0.351, otherwise his stats would look pretty solid.

His walk rate, HR rate, ground ball rate are as good as it ever has been.

I still think his bane is the low K-rate, and his improvement in this stat over last year is less than the improvement in K-rate league wide, so I don't if that is really an improvement...

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Exactly. He'll never be a top 2, maybe even 3, but he's a killer in that 4 spot. Makes every start and gives us a chance to win most of them. Take out that Texas start where he let up 8 in 1 IP(which I think is fair because a loss is a loss) and the rest of the year he's a 4.1 ERA guy with about a 3.5 FIP.

Please take out a 0 ER start where he won because a win is a win to balance things out.

[DrWho17]

Porcello's problem is that we thought he would be Roger Clemens, and it turns out he's looking like Mike Mussina.

[Nastradamus]

Please take out a 0 ER start where he won because a win is a win to balance things out.

I'm not sure its really the same, but it puts him at about a 4.3. I'm just saying, he's given us 156 innings of 4.1 ERA and 1 of 72.00 ERA. That tells the story better than saying he has a 4.56. JMO

[Oblong]

I don't think it's unreasonable to wipe out one start, especially one that abysmal. We're not giving him an award or anything, just trying to figure out what kind of pitcher he'll be in the future. Maybe he had the runs that day, maybe he jammed his finger on a door.....

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I think that if you remove each pitcher's worst start, their stat line will improve. I don't doubt Rick's will improve more than others because his start was more horrible than most, but I feel like throwing away an outlier on one side to help make an argument isn't something I would advocate.

As to projecting forward, I don't know as that is something that is better accomplished by removing the start, unless we are sure he won't jam his finger or get the runs in the future.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

And so I am not mis-understood - I don't think it that big a deal to throw out the 1 inning.

I just personally would throw out the best and the worst, rather than just the worst.

[RandyMarsh]

I have no problem throwing out the 1 inning but the problem lies is that if you do it for Porcello you have to do it for every player in baseball. Now granted I'm sure most pitchers haven't had a 1IP 8 run disaster like Rick but still if you remove every pitchers worst stat line suddenly the league average ERA would go down and a 4.1 ERA like Rick would have might not look as good compared to the rest of the league.

[Yoda]

I think that if you remove each pitcher's worst start, their stat line will improve. I don't doubt Rick's will improve more than others because his start was more horrible than most, but I feel like throwing away an outlier on one side to help make an argument isn't something I would advocate.

As to projecting forward, I don't know as that is something that is better accomplished by removing the start, unless we are sure he won't jam his finger or get the runs in the future.

Has he ever had a 1 IP, 8 ER game before? And does it happen to him every year? Thatll answer your question.

[Yoda]

And so I am not mis-understood - I don't think it that big a deal to throw out the 1 inning.

I just personally would throw out the best and the worst, rather than just the worst.

I wouldn't because the bad game is far more of an outlier than the good game, and is a lot less likely to be indicative of what will happen in the future. Scientists do this sort of thing all the time.

[STLTiger69]

Just for the record does it seem like most of us are now sort of ok with Porcello at the back of our rotation?

[Antrat]

I'm disappointed and expected much more from him as did just about everybody else, but if this is the best he turns out to be, I'll live with it.
His age is one reason I hold out hope that he will blossom into something more.

[tigerbomb13]

Just for the record does it seem like most of us are now sort of ok with Porcello at the back of our rotation?

Yes. Look at what we've had at the back of our rotation in recent years. He may not be a 1-2 like I thought he may be when he first came up, but he's not Brad Penny or Nate Robertson either. This defense doesn't do him many favors.

[STLTiger69]

Yes. Look at what we've had at the back of our rotation in recent years. He may not be a 1-2 like I thought he may be when he first came up, but he's not Brad Penny or Nate Robertson either. This defense doesn't do him many favors.

Actually I'm glad you mentioned that. I'm wondering if the Tigers would consider signing Aníbal Sanchez to a contract extension and moving Smyly into the rotation and trading Porcello and his $3.1M (2012) salary to another team?

I'm trying to make up my mind for the starting rotation for 2013 if Porcello as #4 and Smyly #5 would be better than Sanchez at #4 and Smyly at #5 or frankly even having Sanchez at #4 and Porcello at #5 and Smyly either as trade bait, bullpen or the unnofficial Tigers #6 starter. I know money will be somewhat tight this coming off season(and keeping Sanchez might be too much to do) but if the Tigers are ok with the outfield they have (Garcia, Castellanos, Dirks, Jackson, Boesch, Berry) I guess they could have a few extra million to try and keep both Sanchez and Porcello around.

[TigersSlappy]

I'm not anti Sanchez, but I'm more comfortable with Porcello starting a game right now.

[Chili Mac Davis]

Porcello needs some Dave Duncan.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I have no problem throwing out the 1 inning but the problem lies is that if you do it for Porcello you have to do it for every player in baseball. Now granted I'm sure most pitchers haven't had a 1IP 8 run disaster like Rick but still if you remove every pitchers worst stat line suddenly the league average ERA would go down and a 4.1 ERA like Rick would have might not look as good compared to the rest of the league.

Thank you for expressing this much better than I.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Has he ever had a 1 IP, 8 ER game before? And does it happen to him every year? Thatll answer your question.

No it really doesn't.

My point was and is you can't know that he won't have a bad short start next year. I doubt it will be 1 IP / 8 ER bad, but I think it is entirely possible that he have a start where he goes an inning or 2 and allows 4 or 5 runs, which wouldn't materially change his ERA relative to the 1 IP / 8 ER start.

[tiger337]

Porcello needs some Dave Duncan.

That's what I've been telling my father - a big Cardinals fan.

[Yoda]

No it really doesn't.

My point was and is you can't know that he won't have a bad short start next year. I doubt it will be 1 IP / 8 ER bad, but I think it is entirely possible that he have a start where he goes an inning or 2 and allows 4 or 5 runs, which wouldn't materially change his ERA relative to the 1 IP / 8 ER start.

I completely agree. The problem is that it's so far past standard deviation. He may have another start like that next year, but there's absolutely no reason to expect it. It's far more likely that he'll have another 8IP, 1ER game. For that reason it's perfectly reasonable to throw out that far of an outlier. If his worst start was something like 2 IP, 6 ER, then yeah, keep it in. But 1/8 is just a little too unreasonable for me. Not saying everyone has to throw it out but there's plenty reason to do so.

I'd be saying the same thing if a pitcher who's every start was something like 3 IP, 6 ER, and suddenly threw a shutout. Toss that game because it probably isn't going to happen next year.

[Yoda]

I have no problem throwing out the 1 inning but the problem lies is that if you do it for Porcello you have to do it for every player in baseball. Now granted I'm sure most pitchers haven't had a 1IP 8 run disaster like Rick but still if you remove every pitchers worst stat line suddenly the league average ERA would go down and a 4.1 ERA like Rick would have might not look as good compared to the rest of the league.

I think you're just missing the point. It isn't to simply remove the worst start. It's to remove an extreme outlier that probably isn't repeatable and is going to skew the final results. It's pretty standard practice in any sort of scientific study. I see nothing wrong with using the same practice here. In this case, removing that game gives a better overall representation of what he actually did this year. You certainly don't have too, though.

[Gehringer_2]

I think you're just missing the point. It isn't to simply remove the worst start. It's to remove an extreme outlier that probably isn't repeatable and is going to skew the final results. It's pretty standard practice in any sort of scientific study. I see nothing wrong with using the same practice here. In this case, removing that game gives a better overall representation of what he actually did this year. You certainly don't have too, though.

yes, the theory being that while an extreme outlier is possible in any distribution, when it is far away enough you reach a point where the probability is greater that you were actually sampling some other phenomenon than the one you were the rest of the time. In an experiment, it's usually/often because the equipment gets screwed up and is actually measuring the wrong thing or the wrong scale etc.

In the case of a pitching outing, that might be an injured performer, an erratic or extreme umpire, playing in a 50 mph wind blowing out - IOW, something is going on that puts that instance of the event outside the definition of the normal event - which means it's measurement should not be part of the aggregated statistics.

[Yoda]

yes, the theory being that while an extreme outlier is possible in any distribution, when it is far away enough you reach a point where the probability is greater that you were actually sampling some other phenomenon than the one you were the rest of the time. In an experiment, it's usually/often because the equipment gets screwed up and is actually measuring the wrong thing or the wrong scale etc.

In the case of a pitching outing, that might be an injured performer, an erratic or extreme umpire, playing in a 50 mph wind blowing out - IOW, something is going on that puts that instance of the event outside the definition of the normal event - which means it's measurement should not be part of the aggregated statistics.

You said this way better than I did. Thank you!

[Nastradamus]

Either way my overall points stands with or without the outlier removed. I just thought it was another interesting thing to look at.

[pyrotigers]

You can't take Porcello's FIP seriously, it's a stat that treats his lucky HR rate as if it's something he completely controls and his K/BB the same as a pitcher who actually strikes people out. HR's will stabilize and any reasonable person would presumably agree that a pitcher with a 9:3 K:BB is a lot more likely to be successful than one who has a 3:1.

It really doesn't matter how many groundballs Porcello gets, how great he looks stuff wise, if he doesn't stop having games where he strikes out 0, 1, or 2 batters he's going to keep having games where he gets hammered.

Porcello has 27 starts this year, and he's struck out 3 or fewer in 13 of them. For comparison:

Verlander: 28 starts, 1 game of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Scherzer: 27 starts, 4 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Fister: 21 starts, 5 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts (one of these was the start he left injured to begin the season)
Smyly: 16 starts, 3 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Sanchez: 26 starts, 8 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts (5 of these in 7 starts with the Tigers, yikes)

Porcello does get let down more often by his defense than the other pitchers, but that's because he lets it happen. If you're unable to get any swings and misses in half your starts you're much more likely to have terrible starts.

[Shelton]

You can't take Porcello's FIP seriously, it's a stat that treats his lucky HR rate as if it's something he completely controls and his K/BB the same as a pitcher who actually strikes people out. HR's will stabilize and any reasonable person would presumably agree that a pitcher with a 9:3 K:BB is a lot more likely to be successful than one who has a 3:1.

It really doesn't matter how many groundballs Porcello gets, how great he looks stuff wise, if he doesn't stop having games where he strikes out 0, 1, or 2 batters he's going to keep having games where he gets hammered.

Porcello has 27 starts this year, and he's struck out 3 or fewer in 13 of them. For comparison:

Verlander: 28 starts, 1 game of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Scherzer: 27 starts, 4 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Fister: 21 starts, 5 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts (one of these was the start he left injured to begin the season)
Smyly: 16 starts, 3 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Sanchez: 26 starts, 8 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts (5 of these in 7 starts with the Tigers, yikes)

Porcello does get let down more often by his defense than the other pitchers, but that's because he lets it happen. If you're unable to get any swings and misses in half your starts you're much more likely to have terrible starts.

Yes.

[tiger337]

But if Porcello is not capable of striking guys out, then ground balls and good control is the best approach. Finding a team with good infield defense would help too.

[Tim Mitchell]

A 5 inning pitcher.
Anything more than that is a really bad bet.

[sagnam]

23

[alwaysthrowheat]

Porcello still gets killed by left handers: .330/.381/.500/.881.

Also, he gets much worse as the game goes on.

1st PA: .281/.314/.377/.691
2nd PA: .304/.346/.464/.810
3rd PA: .356/.407/.494/.901

Pitches 51-75: .330/.360/.460/.820
After pitch 75: .353/.418/.504/.922 (not including 3-6 with 2 doubles after pitch 100)

Rick needs to build some stamina, but he's not bad for a 4th starter.

[pyrotigers]

But if Porcello is not capable of striking guys out, then ground balls and good control is the best approach. Finding a team with good infield defense would help too.

Yes, and I think he could be a solid pitcher in the right situation. But at the same time, if he's not striking guys out he's never going to be a very good pitcher, and he's always going to be overly reliant on both luck and his teammates.

I know those guys can do well in the right situation, but as a fan of any team, especially one that's likely to have Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder in the infield for the foreseeable future, I want a pitcher who controls his own destiny.

[Nastradamus]

You can't take Porcello's FIP seriously, it's a stat that treats his lucky HR rate as if it's something he completely controls and his K/BB the same as a pitcher who actually strikes people out. HR's will stabilize and any reasonable person would presumably agree that a pitcher with a 9:3 K:BB is a lot more likely to be successful than one who has a 3:1.

It really doesn't matter how many groundballs Porcello gets, how great he looks stuff wise, if he doesn't stop having games where he strikes out 0, 1, or 2 batters he's going to keep having games where he gets hammered.

Porcello has 27 starts this year, and he's struck out 3 or fewer in 13 of them. For comparison:

Verlander: 28 starts, 1 game of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Scherzer: 27 starts, 4 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Fister: 21 starts, 5 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts (one of these was the start he left injured to begin the season)
Smyly: 16 starts, 3 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts
Sanchez: 26 starts, 8 games of 3 or fewer strikeouts (5 of these in 7 starts with the Tigers, yikes)

Porcello does get let down more often by his defense than the other pitchers, but that's because he lets it happen. If you're unable to get any swings and misses in half your starts you're much more likely to have terrible starts.

2 points. First, my point about his FIP was about improvement. Whether it is dead accurate or not, it has improved at the same increment pretty much year by year. For that reason, I find it silly to suggest he hasn't improved. Whether the FIP is artificially deflated is kind of irrelevant. Second, his HR rate has been the same 3 years in a row, at some point its not a fluke that is going to come back to the mean.

Also while he does get less Ks, leading to more defensive opportunities, he also pretty much turns those into groundballs with his higher percentage there. That shouldn't be killing you.

[Nastradamus]

Porcello still gets killed by left handers: .330/.381/.500/.881.

Also, he gets much worse as the game goes on.

1st PA: .281/.314/.377/.691
2nd PA: .304/.346/.464/.810
3rd PA: .356/.407/.494/.901

Pitches 51-75: .330-.360/.460
After pitch 75: .353/.418/.504/.922 (not including 3-6 with 2 doubles after pitch 100)

Rick needs to build some stamina, but he's not bad for a 4th starter.

legit criticisms no doubt.

[ToledoTigerFan]

I saw the thread title and assumed he had an arrest or two in the past that I forgot about...

That's what I thought. I figured he must've hit a Jew or something.

[tiger337]

That's what I thought. I figured he must've hit a Jew or something.

Kevin Youkilis?

[RandyMarsh]

Yes, and I think he could be a solid pitcher in the right situation. But at the same time, if he's not striking guys out he's never going to be a very good pitcher, and he's always going to be overly reliant on both luck and his teammates.

I know those guys can do well in the right situation, but as a fan of any team, especially one that's likely to have Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder in the infield for the foreseeable future, I want a pitcher who controls his own destiny.

+1, this is how I feel. There's no doubt that I think Porcello could really excel in the right environment, but unfortunately that environment is never going to exist here so there's no point in even speculating how he would do. He doesn't even need to be a Verlander or Scherzer and K 9+ per 9, but even if he could up his K rate to around 7 it would do wonders.

But more important than the overall K rate is the fact that he doesn't have an out pitch for a K. If he was just pitching to contact all game and could K somebody once guys got on base or a runner on 3rd it would be one thing but that's not the case. His already bad K rate gets even worse once guys are on base which is when strikeouts are most important. So basically what I'm getting at is I do like him as a 4th or 5th starter and he's certainly valuable to the team but I don't care what his FIP, SIERRA or any other metric says, until he develops a true swing and miss out pitch I'm going to take it with a grain of salt.

[Moonlight Graham]

I really don't think we should trade for a starter.

We need a 2B badly...long-term, short-term. We need a corner OF less, but I'd still rather have one of those than another SP.

I agree 100%.

[alwaysthrowheat]

I really don't think we should trade for a starter.

We need a 2B badly...long-term, short-term. We need a corner OF less, but I'd still rather have one of those than another SP.

Infante is fine at second for another couple years.