BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Putz putting up Cy Young numbers

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Putz putting up Cy Young numbers

Let’s J.J. Futz around with some numbers.

Putz has more saves (29) than base runners (28) in 46 1/3 innings. He has surrendered just one run in a save situation.

Zero blown saves—what’s the big deal? Well, 36 pitchers have blown five or more saves this season; 63 four or more. Every other major league pitcher with more than two save opportunities has blown at least one save.

He has the best ERA (0.78, minimum 40 innings) and best WHIP (walks plus hits per innings pitched: 0.56) in baseball.

Go all sabermetric and you find he also owns the best component ERA (ERC, a metric that equalizes for all pitchers and offers a truer measure of performance).

The SI article also pointed out the Baseball Prospectus metric WXRL (Win Expectation Above Replacement), which measures the number of wins a relief pitcher contributes versus a replacement level player. Putz’s number (5.489) through 95 games is by far the best in baseball and is on pace (9.36) to be the second-best in baseball history, even superior to Gagne’s amazing season when he went 55-for-55 in save situations.

These numbers aren’t Yiddish. Trust me, speaking that around J.J. puts him in a rare glower. But the translation is simple: At present, the Cy Young discussion starts with Putz.

These numbers aren’t vegan pâté either.

Jim Furtado Posted: July 24, 2007 at 11:35 AM | 25 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Seattle

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:39 PM (#2452832)

These numbers aren’t Yiddish. Trust me, speaking that around J.J. puts him in a rare glower.

Rarely is pro-Semitism's ugly face so blatantly displayed.

2. The Kids Are Enright (1k5v3L)

Posted: July 24, 2007 at 12:57 PM (#2452850)

JJ isn't dicking around.

3. Robert Machemer Posted: July 24, 2007 at 02:57 PM (#2452953)

player    IP    SO    H  BB  HR  HBP   ERA
Putz     46.1   49   19   7   3   0   0.78  
Okajima  48.2   42   29  12   2   0   0.92 

But here's the thing. According to bb-ref.co, Okajima's home park is inflating offense by 1-2%, while Putz's home park is deflating it by 5-6%. ESPN (which uses one-year factors) has Fenway inflating offense by 28% and Safeco deflating it by 3-4%.

I'm not advocating Okajima as a Cy Young candidate, and both pitchers are doing absolutely great, but I am suggesting that it's not clear to me that Putz is having a better season than Okajima.

4. AJM Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:06 PM (#2452961)

I am suggesting that it's not clear to me that Putz is having a better season than Okajima.

Count the savezzzzz!

5. Paul The Paranoid Android Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:06 PM (#2452962)

I'm not advocating Okajima as a Cy Young candidate, and both pitchers are doing absolutely great, but I am suggesting that it's not clear to me that Putz is having a better season than Okajima.

Don't you know anything? Putz is a Closer! Setup guys can't have better years than Closers! To even suggest as such would tear asunder the very fabric of the game.

If Okajima goes on to be the Greatest Closer Who Ever Lived, you'd be allowed, in retrospect to suggest it (see Rivera, Mariano).

6. Rich Rifkin I Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:24 PM (#2452993)

Maybe this is more of an indictment against the Win Shares system of accounting -- it doesn't give any credit for success in high leverage situations, such as closing a ball game. However, according to Win Shares (as of 7/8), Putz is just another shmendrick among AL pitchers, tied with Chad Gaudin and Eric Bedard:

2007 Haren D OAK AL 14
2007 Sabathia C CLE 12
2007 Lackey J LAA 12
2007 Santana J MIN 12
2007 Buehrle M CHA 12
2007 Blanton J OAK 11
2007 Gaudin C OAK 10
2007 Matsuzaka D BOS 10
2007 Bedard E BAL 10
2007 Beckett J BOS 10
2007 Vazquez J CHA 10
2007 Escobar K LAA 10
2007 Putz J SEA 10
2007 Okajima H BOS 8
2007 Shields S LAA 8

7. baudib Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:32 PM (#2453000)

IIRC, tango found that closers ultimately face higher-leverage situations than middle relievers.

8. TomH Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:33 PM (#2453002)

Since WS is value over low replacement, this makes sense to me. I'll bet a 'WS above avg' metric would list Putz much higher.

9. AJM Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:51 PM (#2453032)

IIRC, Win Shares gives credit for saves.

10. baudib Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:53 PM (#2453035)

Crossing threads here, Putz leads the AL in WPA, 4.54 to 4.42, over A-Rod.

11. Big Train Posted: July 24, 2007 at 04:01 PM (#2453049)

It is a shame WPA seems to be gaining credibility. I can not think of a more garbage stat

12. Loren F.'s well-anchored glenoid Posted: July 24, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2453050)

I thought one of the criticisms of Win Shares was that it overvalues closers because it gives credit for saves.

13. DKDC Posted: July 24, 2007 at 04:05 PM (#2453057)

I'm willing to believe that a reliever can be the most valuable pitcher in the majors.

I'm not willing to believe that 16 of the most valuable 25 pitchers in baseball are relievers.

I like WPA as long as it's used correctly, but I don't think it has much bearing on MVP/Cy discussions.

14. Mister High Standards Posted: July 24, 2007 at 04:11 PM (#2453068)

I'm not willing to believe that 16 of the most valuable 25 pitchers in baseball are relievers.

With SP's workload shrinking in shrinking I don't find it all that surprising, while the neo-closers workload has remained fairly constant. At least that is my perception.

Nothing excites me more than WPA catching on. While not the entire story, when used as a piece of the puzzle it add a lot to the conversation.

15. J. Cross Posted: July 24, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2453074)

It is a shame WPA seems to be gaining credibility. I can not think of a more garbage stat

There's always win shares.

One problem with WPA is that it compares both starters and relievers to the same average pitching outcome thus overrating relievers and underrating starters.

16. DKDC Posted: July 24, 2007 at 04:37 PM (#2453098)

One problem with WPA is that it compares both starters and relievers to the same average pitching outcome thus overrating relievers and underrating starters.

That's not really a problem with WPA, which does a great job of measuring what it is designed to measure.

It is problem when one tries to use WPA to compare performance of starters and relievers, as is the huge amount of leverage credit given to closers that starters rarely have a chance to get.

I doubt there's there's anyone out there that puts this much weight on WPA, but consider that by strict WPA, 35 innings of Al Reyes' 118 ERA+ is worth more than 141 innings of Johan Santana's 149 ERA+.

17. baudib Posted: July 24, 2007 at 04:40 PM (#2453103)

I'm willing to believe that a reliever can be the most valuable pitcher in the majors.

I'm not willing to believe that 16 of the most valuable 25 pitchers in baseball are relievers.

I like WPA as long as it's used correctly, but I don't think it has much bearing on MVP/Cy discussions.

But it has a lot of bearing in a discussion where the value of Putz's leverage is being mocked (in comparison to Okajima).

18. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: July 24, 2007 at 05:22 PM (#2453139)

That's not really a problem with WPA, which does a great job of measuring what it is designed to measure.

Which is what, exactly? As far as I can see, it's useful for determining the importance of a given moment in a given game, but it doesn't say much about how good a player is or even how much value he happened to generate in a given season. If managers got to deploy their hitters like they do their relief pitchers, then maybe it would mean more.

19. Mister High Standards Posted: July 24, 2007 at 05:32 PM (#2453157)

If managers got to deploy their hitters like they do their relief pitchers, then maybe it would mean more.

\

How they are deployed is another matter. How they produced is very much a question that we are still trying to answer. Not how much they would produce in a vaccum, but how much they produced in helping a team win. While WPA isn't perfect I still contend that it is better to have the information and consider it than to ignore it.

20. Loren F.'s well-anchored glenoid Posted: July 26, 2007 at 12:10 PM (#2456044)

Well, after last night Putz's Cy Young chances are shot!

But seriously, what's Putz's WPA now?

21. RB in NYC (Now with New Running Goal!) Posted: July 26, 2007 at 12:18 PM (#2456051)

But seriously, what's Putz's WPA now?

4.23, which still leads relievers by a fair margin (the next closest is Betancourt at 3.13) and starters (Chris Young, 3.31) but dropped below A-Rod (4.61) for the overall lead.

22. AROM Posted: July 26, 2007 at 12:20 PM (#2456053)

If managers got to deploy their hitters like they do their relief pitchers, then maybe it would mean more.

They could, Angels could keep Vlad on the bench until the bases are loaded, but then they'd only get to use him once per day. It would be a total waste.

23. AROM Posted: July 26, 2007 at 12:24 PM (#2456057)

If Okajima goes on to be the Greatest Closer Who Ever Lived, you'd be allowed, in retrospect to suggest it (see Rivera, Mariano).

Rivera would have been nothing if he had not learned the closer mentality as John Wetteland's apprentice.

24. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 26, 2007 at 12:26 PM (#2456059)

"It is a shame WPA seems to be gaining credibility."

Yeah, no kidding.

25. RB in NYC (Now with New Running Goal!) Posted: July 26, 2007 at 12:29 PM (#2456063)

They could, Angels could keep Vlad on the bench until the bases are loaded, but then they'd only get to use him once per day. It would be a total waste.

I think John Kruk once suggested this on BBTN, in regards to Barry Bonds. Ravech and Reynolds were left literally spechless, they just looked shell-shocked. I think HR finally managed to say somethig like "That's....uh...not a good...idea," before they went to commercial.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Putz putting up Cy Young numbers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics