A Look Toward 2010: The Pitching
by Eric Stephen on Oct 25, 2009 1:00 PM PDT
in Research
37 comments
Yesterday we took a look at the offensive projections for the 2010 Dodgers, thanks to the Bill James Handbook (available November 1). Today we look at the pitching staff.
I calculated FIP for the projections based on the formula at The Hardball Times. In these projections, keep in mind that playing time and pitching role is merely estimated.
Starters |
|||||
| Clayton Kershaw |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2009 actual | 171.0 | 2.79 | 3.06 | 4.79 | 9.74 |
| 2010 projected | 180 | 3.25 | 3.47 | 4.55 | 9.40 |
| 2010 status | under club control |
||||
| Chad Billingsley |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 193 | 3.68 | 3.72 | 3.92 | 8.81 |
| 2009 actual | 196.1 | 4.03 | 3.77 | 3.94 | 8.21 |
| 2010 projected | 185 | 3.65 | 3.77 | 3.94 | 8.61 |
| 2010 status | arbitration eliglble | ||||
| Randy Wolf |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 195 | 4.25 | 4.30 | 3.32 | 7.62 |
| 2009 actual | 214.1 | 3.23 | 3.99 | 2.44 | 6.72 |
| 2010 projected | 200 | 3.87 | 4.26 | 3.02 | 7.16 |
| 2010 status | Type A free agent |
||||
| Hiroki Kuroda |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 192 | 3.89 | 4.38 | 2.53 | 5.86 |
| 2009 actual | 117.1 | 3.76 | 3.61 | 1.84 | 6.67 |
| 2010 projected | 128 | 3.80 | 4.29 | 2.46 | 5.98 |
| 2010 status | under contract |
||||
| Vicente Padilla |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 151 | 4.71 | 4.71 | 3.28 | 6.26 |
| 2009 actual | 147.1 | 4.46 | 4.51 | 3.30 | 5.93 |
| 2010 projected | 141 | 4.66 | 4.73 | 3.26 | 6.19 |
| 2010 status | Type B free agent |
||||
| Padilla's stats with Texas included | |||||
| Jon Garland |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 186 | 4.69 | 5.02 | 2.90 | 4.40 |
| 2009 actual | 204 | 4.01 | 4.43 | 2.69 | 4.81 |
| 2010 projected | 216 | 4.33 | 4.62 | 2.67 | 4.54 |
| 2010 status | mutual contract option |
||||
| Garland's stats with Arizona included | |||||
Bullpen |
|||||
| Jonathan Broxton |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 70 | 3.09 | 2.63 | 3.47 | 11.19 |
| 2009 actual | 76.0 | 2.61 | 1.98 | 3.43 | 13.50 |
| 2010 projected | 80 | 2.36 | 2.44 | 3.49 | 11.70 |
| 2010 status | arbitration eliglble | ||||
| George Sherrill |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 53 | 3.40 | 3.43 | 4.58 | 10.19 |
| 2009 actual | 69.0 | 1.70 | 3.09 | 3.13 | 7.96 |
| 2010 projected | 74 | 2.92 | 3.37 | 4.01 | 9.36 |
| 2010 status | arbitration eliglble | ||||
| Sherrill's stats with Baltimore included | |||||
| Hong-Chih Kuo |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 69 | 3.39 | 2.90 | 3.52 | 10.96 |
| 2009 actual | 30.0 | 3.00 | 3.18 | 3.90 | 9.60 |
| 2010 projected | 48 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.75 | 10.50 |
| 2010 status | arbitration eliglble | ||||
| Ronald Belisario |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2009 actual | 70.2 | 2.04 | 3.26 | 3.69 | 8.15 |
| 2010 projected | 69 | 4.04 | 4.25 | 4.17 | 7.17 |
| 2010 status | under club control |
||||
| Ramon Troncoso |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2009 actual | 82.2 | 2.72 | 3.31 | 3.70 | 5.99 |
| 2010 projected | 72 | 3.88 | 3.59 | 3.75 | 6.63 |
| 2010 status | under club control |
||||
| James McDonald |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2009 actual | 63.0 | 4.00 | 4.29 | 4.86 | 7.71 |
| 2010 projected | 74 | 3.77 | 4.27 | 4.01 | 9.12 |
| 2010 status | under club control |
||||
| Guillermo Mota |
|||||
| Year | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 |
| 2009 projected | 56 | 3.86 | 4.26 | 3.38 | 7.55 |
| 2009 actual | 65.1 | 3.44 | 4.11 | 3.31 | 5.37 |
| 2010 projected | 55 | 3.60 | 4.22 | 3.44 | 7.20 |
| 2010 status | Type B free agent |
||||
In addition, there were some 2010 projections for other Dodgers.
| Other Projections |
||||||
| Pitcher | IP | ERA | FIP | BB/9 | K/9 | 2010 Contract Status |
| Eric Stults |
32 | 5.06 | 4.62 | 3.38 | 7.03 | under club control (out of options) |
| Jeff Weaver |
77 | 5.03 | 4.77 | 2.57 | 5.96 | free agent |
| Charlie Haeger |
38 | 4.97 | 5.26 | 4.50 | 6.39 | under club control |
0 recs |
37 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
randy wolf projected to have a 2.87 ERA next year??
with a increase in Strikeouts??
while kershaw is going to have an increase in ERAand FIP and Decrease in Ks
i think this is backwards… isnt kershaw supposed to improve while randy goes back to his regular self??
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bill James is generally optimistic on everybody.
James’ prediction machine constantly overshoots everyone.
by Tripon on Oct 25, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Kershaw
2009
ERA: 2.79
FIP: 3.06
x-FIP: 3.94
One could argue that Kershaw was a bit lucky last year. His ERA out-performed his FIP and his x-FIP was quite a bit higher than his FIP. You could take the position that even with another year of development, he could see normalization in those numbers and hive a higher ERA and FIP. Kershaw’s HR/Fly ratio of 4.7% was the best in baseball. I could see how that would balance out next year.
None of this would explain for a drop in K’s though….
by Michael White on Oct 25, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Typo
My bad. Wolf’s projected ERA is 3.87
by Eric Stephen on Oct 25, 2009 4:04 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Confused Too
If you put that much faith in FIP, then how does your reference predict Wolf is going to get “lucky” again or does this reference consider BABIP as a variable set by the pitcher’s history?
Where’s Weaver? Can you please predict his BABIPBL :)?
Are these the same predictions that had Arizona fighting for 1st in the West last year?
by Cool Dudes on Oct 25, 2009 1:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kershaw
Billingsley
Kuroda
McDonald/Elbert
? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a 200+ inning guy for the #4 spot?
How much will the market bear for a #3, #4 pitcher this off season? $10 mil for Garland seems a bit much.
The way the Dodger world is turning these days McDonald and Elbert for the #4 and #5 spots seems likely at least until the trading deadline?
by 68elcamino427 on Oct 25, 2009 2:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i wish mcdonald and elbert could get a chance
but i dont see it happening with a ned and joe managed team…
maybe if we were the rays or a smaller market team..
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t Garland only $7.5m because Arizona pays $2.5m no matter what?
Given the other options out there, $7.5m is probably a good deal for that consistency. I’m no Garland fan but as you say, it would be good to have a 200 innings guy.
The best thing about this chart is realizing Kershaw threw less innings than I thought he did/would.
by LA Taco on Oct 25, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, Arizona is paying the buyout.
If there’s no buyout, there’s no D’Backs payment.
by Tripon on Oct 25, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what??
where did you get this peice of information from??
cause if they are not going to give us 2.5 mil… then we should get abrue back then too..
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The deal was for a month of Garland salary and the buyout.
by Tripon on Oct 25, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
alright but if the dodgers exercise the 10 mill dollar option
the dbacks have to still pay 2.5 mil right
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where did you get that info from?
link.
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it makes more sense
that way, because if we pick up the option, it’s 10m for his service, there is no buyout.
For some reason though, I thought I had read on some other Dodger site that Arizona will pay no matter what. But that doesn’t really make sense.
by LA Taco on Oct 25, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i doubt that the dodgers would want to pay him 10 mil
so hes probably gone anyways
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a mutual option
If the Dodgers exercise it but Garland opts out, the buyout is only $1 million, which is all AZ would have to pay.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 25, 2009 4:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I really really really really really really doubt Garland witll get 10 mil
And over the coarse of the season I would see no reason why Garland would be any better than Stults. The whole point of Garland was to get a guy who had some experience in the playoffs to back injury plagued Kuroda and 2nd half shakey Bills. No way were they going to bring Stults back and have him go into the post-season, but he is a better backup then paying good money for a mediocre player.
If we spend money it should be for a solid guy like Wolf who is going to improve the rotation or for a potentially great pitcher who is young enough to hang with the “young core”. That being said that money saved isn’t go back into the team just like Manny’s 1/3 of 25 mil isn’t go back into the team (unless you count the lawyers).
by Cool Dudes on Oct 25, 2009 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Garland was more of an inning eater and was signed cause Bills and Kuroda were struggling
he really doesnt have a place in the dodger rotation in the future if we are able to get both of them back to form or even go after another pitcher….
When I look at Boris Diaw, I think of Beethoven and the age of the romantics... -The Great Bill Walton
by shaqfor3 on Oct 25, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what will the going rate per year be for a #4starter who will give a predictable 200+ innings?
Who else is available?
How many years will he need to be signed for? and at what cost?
Maybe Garland for one year at this price isn’t so bad.
He’s pitching half his games in Dodger Stadium.
Would paying $10 mil for one year be worth the future flexibility?
This would give McDonald/Elbert a little more time to mature?
by 68elcamino427 on Oct 25, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I know is
Clayton Kershaw is going to absolutely dominate next year and establish himself as a Cy Young candidate for years to come.
by KSeal on Oct 25, 2009 6:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm no big fan of Steve Phillips
but it still seems stupid to fire him over this. Not that I’m surprised he was.
by EMDarrow on Oct 25, 2009 6:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hah, and it gets better
The story, as it appears on ESPN.com:
ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz said Sunday night the network determined Phillips’ ability to be an effective analyst was “significantly and irreparably damaged.”
Because we all know that having sex destroys ones ability to sit next to John Kruk and spout baseball cliches.
by EMDarrow on Oct 25, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a-rod walks in a run
on strike 2….
BUllshit call for the angels…
they got squeezed big time in that inning and hopefully it wont cost them the game cause i hate when umpires take the game into their own hands and effect the outcome
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 6:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
On first glance I thought it was a strike too but on the replay it was shown to be just inside
by Eric Stephen on Oct 25, 2009 6:59 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
It looked like it cross the plate and then was caught outside.
by Tripon on Oct 25, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it looked inside to me
i thought saunders got robbed there
very tough call
When I look at Boris Diaw, I think of Beethoven and the age of the romantics... -The Great Bill Walton
by shaqfor3 on Oct 25, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i thought it was a strike at first
but then the replay showed it to be a strike for sure…
yes the glove moved but it doesnt matter whether the glove moved..
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was talking about FoxTrax
Or whatever the heck their K zone is called. Which showed the ball crossing the plate inside and not a strike.
by Eric Stephen on Oct 25, 2009 7:52 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
cc mvp??
yeah he deserved it but A-rod should get some recognition at least… they should have done co mvps at least…
by matthewmafa on Oct 25, 2009 9:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
On Kershaw - his "ace-ability" and Cole Hamels - Parallels I
I posted this in the other thread but i think it belongs here. Just some thoughts (lots of them) on looking at kershaw as the ace of your staff. I didnt mention anything about billingsly but i think he contributes to the conversation in a similar fashion and only strengthens the unltimate conclusion here to go after a veteran good guy proven DOMINANT not mid-level softthrowing pussy type of ace…anyway here it goes….
Phillies phan here – agree to the above post – just look at Cole Hamels last year
Much like Kershaw, Cole hamels was considered our in-season "Ace" all year. He pitched extremely well for us and got us to the 2008 playoffs. From there, as you dodgers fans know all too intimately, the rest is HISTORY. As much as we loved Cole in Philadelphia and were excited by his incredible stuff (see kershaw) questions were asked as to whether he was truely a legitimate big staff ace in the molds of C.C. Sabathia’s, johan santana’s, etc…He proved to be otherworldly in his 08 playoff performances winning NLCS and World Series MVP trophies. But I don’t see a huge differnece between the pre-playoff perceptions of hamels and kershaw. It’s just that when the playoffs starting unfolding, Cole became "Hollywood Hamels" and really turned it on where as this year kershaw fell a little flat.
Flash forward to this last year and Hamels struggled mightely in the regular season (as a result of the Verducci effect perhaps? too many innings pitched, and too much post season television appearences?) with a slew of early freak injuries and a general slow start before turning it on a bit towards the end of the regular season
It seems Hamels is having the same problems for us this postseason and doesn’t look a thing like the Legitimate workhorse Ace we all assumed he would be after last years postseason. This is why we went out and got a guy like cliff lee to be that man. It wouldnt be a bad idea for the dodgers to look to someone with a more established resume of greatness to fill that role your staff rather than banking on letting kershaw "mature" into that guy as some have hoped and suggested he should/will/has. Even we dont really know what we have in Hamels in Philly right now so its a long struggle to make a man.
That was a long post. It’s super late. Those we some thoughts that were stewing in my brain after our series ended. When is this freaking world series gonna start anyway it seems like the phillies haven’t played in YEARS with this layoff. hopefully no rust. You guys played a good year. Good luck with the offseason.
by SilkPhantom on Oct 26, 2009 2:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
Related FanShots on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
