Rumors of J.A. Happ's pending demise may be exaggerated
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Rumors of J.A. Happ's pending demise may be exaggerated
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
Sociologists sometimes refer to a phenomenon called "The Pendulum Effect," which refers to the tendency of folks on opposite sides of an argument to make increasingly extreme statements until we reach a point where all Democrats are baby-slaying, liberty-hating communists and all Republicans are Muslim-bashing, sexually-repressed masochists. The effect is not limited to politics; it exists in all societal groups, including baseball pundits, where the schism du jour falls between the new school "Stat heads," who rely heavily on a number of advanced metrics whenevaluating and predicting performance, and the old school "Purists," who prefer things like ERA and eye-witness experience to things like OPS and xFIP. Witness the reaction to the NL Cy Young Ballot cast by ESPN.com columnist Keith Law, a former writer for Baseball Prospectus who voted Javier Vazquez No. 2 ahead of more conventional candidates like Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter. In choosing Vazquez, Law relied on metrics like xFIP and WAR, the second of which -- in addition to serving as an acronym for Wins Above Replacement (player) -- provides a pretty accurate summation of the conflict between the two parties. The Purists think the Stat Heads are taking a sport that features numerous incalculable subtleties and turning it into a glorified game of Strat-o-Matic. The Stat Heads think the Purists are dinosaurs blinded by their infatuation with Romance and their freqent trips to the seventh-inning hot dog table in the press box dining room. It's like Grumpy Old Men, except Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have Hall of Fame votes.
As often happens in world conquest, a seemingly harmless entity finds itself an unwitting linchpin, subjected to each side's repeated attempts to claim it as its own. It is kind of like two kids fighting over a Gumby doll: Both sides grab one arm and pull as hard as they can in the opposite direction until the object in question looks nothing like reality and more like Manute Bol with elephantitis of the arms.
In this case, Gumby is J.A. Happ, the 26-year-old left-handed starter who last season went 12-4 with a 2.93 ERA for the Phillies. Happ finished second in the National League Rookie of the Year balloting, which is a pretty good measure of how the Purists view Happ, since the Baseball Writers Association of America votes on the awards, and the BBWAA is still largely composed of Purists. This, of course, prompted guffaws from the Stat Heads, who all season had been warning that Happ was not as good of a pitcher as his ERA or record (12-4) indicated.
Law -- the aforementioned ESPN.com columnist who, by the way, maintains a pretty interesting blog that combines literature and food criticism with baseball -- has led the charge since Happ started garnering pub around the All-Star Break.
After watching Happ allow four runs in a loss to the Giants in early September, Law labelled Happ "a back-end starter, maybe a No. 4 if you really believe in his deception and his feel for pitching, otherwise a very good No. 5."
Judging by my email, many Phillies fans disagreed with this assessment. And, up to this point, both sides had legitimate arguments.
Stat Heads pointed to things like the disparity between Happ's ERA and his FIP, short for "Fielding Independent Pitching," a metric that attempts to measure things for which a pitcher is reponsible (home runs, walks, strikeouts) while attempting to factor out the defense behind him. Happ's FIP was 4.49, and his xFIP -- a slightly adjusted version of FIP -- was 4.33.
They pointed to his abnormal success with Runners in Scoring Position -- at the time Law labelled Happ a good No. 5 starter, he had held opponents to a ridiculous .120/.225/.157 line with RISP. They pointed to the fact that he stranded 85.2 percent of his runners, well above what is considered "normal."
Many Purists who had watched Happ pitch regularly argued that many of the aforementioned statistics were the result of his unique poise on the mound, as well as the deception on his fastball.
At this point, the two sides could have agreed to disagree and compare notes in a couple of seasons, when Happ has a couple more seasons under his belt.
But the Pendulum was already in motion.
Law left Happ off his hypothetical Rookie of the Year ballot. Phillies fans felt persecuted.
Which brings us to this past week, when Law labelled Happ's 2009 season "a raging fluke driven by an unsustainable performance with men in scoring position that was about luck, not skill."
This prompted one user on the always-entertaining Phillies message board at PhilaPhans.com to label Law an "ass."
So which is it: Is Happ headed for an epic slump after a raging fluke of a season? Or are Keith Law and Co. asses?
In the landscape of baseball projection and evaluation, I consider myself to be a Moderate. I know that is not a popular concept in modern day America, but I suggest that it is the proper stance to take.
My moderate's creed:
- I believe in advanced metrics.
- I believe that there is no infallible metric.
- I believe that metrics are valuable indicators.
- I believe there are aspects of baseball - pitch sequence, deception, poise, intelligence - that are best evaluated through personal experience.
- I believe that personal experience can be impacted by human biases and emotions.
- I believe that the best evaluations are formulated when metrics are combined with personal experience.
In taking a look at the Curious Case of J.A. Happ, I suggest we work backwards. We'll start with Law's contention that Happ's 2009 campaign was a "raging fluke" and that he is "headed for a big regression in 2010" and that "a sophomore slump could really hurt the defending NL Champs." And we'll progress toward Happ being a frontrunner for the 2010 NL Cy Young.
1) Statistical projection is like Black Jack. You aren't betting on what is GOING to happen. You are betting on what is LIKELIEST to happen, based on your evaluation of the table. The more scientific your system, the better your chances of being correct. But even card-counters don't know exactly what the Dealer is going to turn over.
And I don't need to count cards, or xFIPs, to tell you that Happ is likely in line for a statistical regression. From 1995-2008, 13 pitchers have posted an ERA of 3.00 or below (min. 150 IP) in one of their first three seasons in the majors. One of those pitchers, Alan Benes, missed the entire next season.
Of the remaining 12 pitchers, eight saw their ERA rise by at least 0.75, seven by at least 1.00, and three by at least 2.00. Eight of the 12 saw their WHIP rise by at least .200.
Only four pitchers posted ERAs and WHIPs that were close to their previous year's: Tim Lincecum (2.48 ERA, 1.047 WHIP in 2009, 2.62 ERA, 1.172 WHIP in 2008), Jake Peavy (2.27 ERA, 1.196 WHIP in 2004, 2.88 ERA, 1.044 WHIP in 2005), Barry Zito (2.75 ERA, 1.134 WHIP in 2002, 3.30 ERA, 1.183 WHIP in 2003) and Hideo Nomo (2.54 ERA, 1.056 WHIP in 1995, 3.19 ERA, 1.161 WHIP in 1996).
2) The question, of course, is what counts as a "major regression?" Is Andy Pettitte going from a 2.88 ERA and 1.240 WHIP in 1997 to a 4.24 ERA and 1.447 WHIP in 1998 "major." Or is "major" more along the lines of Kyle Kendrick, who posted a 3.87 ERA and 1.273 WHIP in 20 starts in 2007, then saw those numbers balloon to 5.49 and 1.612 in 2008?
Let's call a Kendrick-like regression "major," and a Pettitte-like regression "moderate."
3) For the time being, let's assume that J.A. Happ is in line for a regression that is at least "moderate." Let's assume that he doesn't maintain his .181 batting average on balls in play with runners in scoring position, and therefore does not maintain his .158 average with runners in scoring position, and therefore does not strand 85.2 percent of his baserunners.
Let's assume that The Hardball Times, a renowned stats journal, is correct when it says that Happ's LOB percentage is a product of significant luck, and that a "normal" figure for him last season would have been 70.4 percent. If Happ's LOB% was 70.4 this season instead of 85.2, he would have allowed 27 more runs, and finished the season with an ERA of roughly 4.45 (No, I'm not going to show my work, but you can email me if you really want the details).
4) So, would a 4.45 ERA out of J.A. Happ spell trouble for the Phillies? Consider: Only one NL team, the Rockies, had five pitchers who threw at least 150 innings and posted an ERA of 4.45 or under last season. Three more had four pitchers. So Happ's production - at least according to the most basic measurements - would have been better than that of the fourth starter on 12 of 16 NL teams, including the Dodgers, whom the Phillies defeated in the NLCS.
So even if Happ's ERA was what things like FIP and xFIP suggest it should have been, he still would have been one of the more productive No. 4 starters in the NL.
5) Bill James, the Grand Pooh-Bah of projection, forecasts the following figures for the Phillies' rotation this season:
1. Roy Halladay 17-10, 3.23 ERA, 240.0 IP
2. Cole Hamels 15-9, 3.43 ERA, 210.0 IP
3. Joe Blanton 13-11, 4.06 ERA, 213.0 IP
4. J.A. Happ 10-11, 4.31 ERA, 188.0 IP
Since Wild Card play began in 1995, eight NL teams have finished the year with at least four players tallying more than 185 innings pitched. Two of those teams appeared in the World Series. Four others appeared in the NLCS. Seven of the eight made the playoffs. The lone exception? The 2003 Phillies, who had Kevin Millwood, Randy Wolf, Brett Myers, and Vicente Padilla. . .and David Bell hitting .195 at third base and Pat Burrell hitting .209 in left.
Since 1995, only two NL teams have finished the season with three pitchers who had at least 210 innings pitched and a fourth who pitched at least 185: The 1997 Braves and the 2003 Cubs, both of whom lost in the NLCS.
So even if J.A. Happ does regress to the norm, he still will provide pretty good production out of the fourth spot.
James also projects Happ have to have a 4.43 FIP and 1.38 WHIP. Since we used Pettitte as an example earlier, his 1998 FIP was 4.28 and his WHIP was 1.45.
He was the No. 4 starter on the Yankees that season, when they swept the Padres in the World Series.
My point? Even if Happ isn't the wunderkind we saw last year, he can still be a valuable piece of this rotation.
A little later, though, we'll take a look at some caveats to consider before you downgrade Happ too heavily.
How can Halladay lose 10 games in the NL? Halladay 22-4, Hamels 16-8, Blanton 15-10, Happ 12-9, and Moyer/Kendrick 10-15.- Good stuff Murph. This is always the best and most insightful column on philly.com.— guyguy4
Comment removed.- Neyer - Law was a Stat Head writer, as you put it, well before he ever worked for the Jays. And he wasn't an assistant GM with the Jays. He was a Special Assitant to the GM. And where did he get the Scout's pedigree from? Carnegie Mellon? Regardless, nowhere in the story did I downgrade on Keith Law. I simply feel like his statement that Happ could be in for a Phillies-dooming regression is more extreme than the numbers indicate, and that he was much more rational with what he wrote back in September. But as I'll point out later on, I also feel like the numbers -- and those who rely strictly on them -- often get it wrong. Like, for example, Law's Top 50 free agent list last season, which had Derek Lowe, Milton Bradley, and Pat Burrell ranked well ahead of Randy Wolf, Raul Ibanez and Juan Rivera.
- The problem is the Phils already have a No. 4 in last year's No. 4 Average Joe Blanton and they have him for three more years. They need a real No. 2 and a real No. 3 if they have any hope of defeating the Yanks in a World Series rematch. With last year's No. 3, Pedro, gone Ruben needs both Hamels and Happ to step up and have career years and not miss any of their 35 starts in the rotation during the regular season. Then have them compete at an even higher level against the Bronx Bombers in October. If Hamels and Happ can't do it then it will be a long season at CBP.— Dull
- Two things about Greg Maddux that you can learn in 30 seconds of research: * His career FIP is within .1 of his career ERA. * His first name isn't Gary. If you don't want to learn about or use advanced metrics, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you to. But if you want to attack them, at least make the effort to understand them. There are so many elementary misconceptions about how FIP works here.— Colin Wyers
- David, KLaw scouts players, hes more of a scout than a pure writer. His analysis of Happ was more based on his scouting reports than advanced metrics, you didn't address Happ's lack of stuff at all in your article, even traditional scouts seem to have the opinion that his stuff is marginal across the board. He lacks plus control of his mediocre pitches that does not seem like the recipe for a top of the rotation guy.— Rob Neyer sucks
- I wouldn't go so far as to call Law a moron, but it's obvious he doesn't understand the game. The pitcher can all throw a decent fastball, change, slider etc. Some better than others, but if they're in the show,the 'stuff'itself doesn't vary much from pitcher to pitcher. Sure there's about 10 guys with great stuff, and ten guys where you can't believe they get anyone out, but most pitchers fall somewhere in between, and of course their stuff can vary fronm start to start. The difference between the good pitchers and bad pitchers is 'makeup', those who have the guts to pitch out of situations and those that don't. We've all seen games where a guy has 3 runners on and you just know in your heart that he'll throw a 2-1 cookie that gets lined in the gap, where there are others that throw a ground ball in that spot. That's the diference between the good and bad pitchers, the ones that have the guts to "minimize the damage" as Steve Carlton used to say are always more successful. It's not luck, it's not something that can be figured out by probability charts; guys like Aaron Harang, who always looks great on the stat sheets, will always find a way to give up the key hit at the worst possible time, and guys like Happ don't. You don't have to be old school or a traditionalist to see that, you just have to watch enough games.— drbob1
- Neyer - You're arguing about something I did not write. That was my whole point at the start of the Post. You feel like I am arguing that J.A. Happ is a No. 1 starter, and therefore respond by arguing that he is marginal at best, rather than actually looking at reality, which is that J.A. Happ may very well be a No. 4 starter on a playoff team, but even the statistics don't suggest that he is going to regress as much as some people would lead you to believe. Unless you think a 4.33 ERA and 188 innings is a huge liability at No. 4.
- JimG you couldn't be more right. The only reason Law and his ilk have jobs has to be naked pictures of Chris Berman. Stats and trends don't tell the whole story. Again, JimG spot on with the batting average analogy. Law and company are like your friend who says he has a system for picking football games but only brings it up when he's right. Everyone knows the "see I told you" guy. He always fails to mention the 62 times in row he was wrong before that, just like Law. Before I get off of my soapbox, I just want to say this. ESPN has become almost unwatchable anymore with the idiots they trot out there as experts.— pbuscio
- drbob1- That was an irrational argument, you can't possibly say that one can quantify how much "grit" or "makeup" one pitcher has compared to another. At least KLaw bass his arguments on things that actually are measurable.— Rob Neyer sucks
- Which is why it would have been better for the Phillies to trade Happ & another prospect as part of the package to get Halladay instead of sacrificing Lee.— makrom
- @robneyersucks: That's the whole point..it's a rational argument in that it's not measurable by stats, just like the other 3 sports...You watch the game every day, you get a feel for which guys "find a way to win" and which guys "find a way to lose", as an old football coach used to say. Take that guy on the Reds, Homer Bailey...you look at his stuff , his minor league stats, etc, you say Wow, this guy ought to be a great pitcher. Then you go out to see him pitch in a major league game. And he does get people out.. But sometime in the 6th inning or so with a couple men on, when he needs to make a good pitch.. he doesn't. Now on the stat sheet, he may have pitched a decent game, he may come out fine on the "metrics" . You're right, you can't quantify "grit" or "makeup". But I think those old baseball scouts will tell you they know it when they see it. What's irrational is to watch J. Happ pitch an entire major league season,finish near the top of 'Rookie of the Year' voting, throw just under 200 innings and make a bunch of starts in which he had trememndous consistency of effort, and say "sure , I saw that every 5 days all summer long, I just don't believe it"— drbob1
- I don't know much about these new-fangled statistics and judge players by what I see in terms of stuff, poise, command, etc. My own view is that, based on his stuff and command at times, Happ pitched "over his head" last year and shouldn't be expected to repeat those numbers this year. Having said that, there is no reason to not expect him to be a competent NO. 3 or 4 which ain't all that bad, especially on a team that scores as many runs as the Phillies.— bvillebaron
- One, David, please keep up the wonderful posts. This is simply great baseball talk. And don't bother replying to commenters who entirely miss your point, even when your point has been stated explicitly. You provide a forum for great commenters, like JimG, MikeP as well as Mike P, Chuck49 and a bunch of others. Then there are those with fragile intellects and egos who can't manage to concentrate on a topic for 6 minutes, so they have to attack the very notion of in-depth analysis; it's not surprising that their humor is as flaccid as the rest of their minds... Finally, Rob Neyer's 5:04 pm comment cuts to the core of what's lacking from people like Law: If something exists, but is not measurable and easily measurable, it is thus not counted at all. To make an argument predicated on "grit" and "makeup" is in no way whatsoever irrational; it's only much, much harder to evaluate. But unless you want to argue that all pitchers have equal amounts of will, grit, tenacity, concentration, intelligence, composure, mental stamina, etc., etc., in all situations, then these are all variables that make a difference, maybe all the difference, and I'm sorry we can't measure them here in 2010, but they are real. So don't pretend that what you've just measured tells the more accurate story, especially when you can't even discriminate between a poorly hit ball in play and a well-hit one! You know, a towering, 300-foot fly ball excites the ignorant fans; but it wasn't really close to being a home run, or even a hit, because the pitcher made the pitch he wanted to that particular hitter. In this case, Law would be just another ignorant fan.— PhilaLogic
