M's with an incredible streak of 8 straight games with >4 runs allowed. This was pointed out by Geoff Baker. What is this, Dodger Stadium 1965? :- )
The 1965 Dodgers had Koufax, Drysdale, Claude Osteen (?) and some other guy in a FOUR-man rotation. Bet you that it wasn't so often that THEY had 8-game runs of perfect pitching. :- ) Maybe somebody wants to go check it out?
Matty frets that the 8-game streak will go down in flames, since a non-ML-quality starter takes the mound tonight. I too suffer the trembling knees. After all, that's why teams don't get 10 great starts in a row: they have #4 and #5 slots in the rotation.
.....................
Amigo wonders, hey, why down on Garrett Olson. He was great in the minors. He's a work in progress, that's all.
In this fangraphs article, also, an amigo is impressed with Olson's minors results and wonders if better park and OF support isn't the key to City Hall. http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/garrett-olson-catches-a-break... To me, these analyses are logical but off track, "True But Not Accurate" as they say at Boeing.
My judgment is that Olson has AAAA stuff -- that his fastball and his command of it are too mushy for the big time, and that his curve hangs too often. That's my opinion; I could be wrong.
Personally think that he's always going to have gopheritis -- that when he misses and gets too much of the plate, he's going to get smashed. And he will miss often, my friends.
..................
Thus far in the bigs, he has a career HR rate of 1.3 -- completely unacceptable -- and this year, that HR rate is 2.0. All of this with a lousy 1.28 control ratio lifetime.
There are some guys who can outsmart AAA hitters, but who don't have what it takes in the big leagues. That's where the "Quad-A player" designation comes from.
....................
My own rejection of Olson, previously published, isn't sabermetric. It's based on tools scouting. I predict that his future is nil. FWIW, there are obviously a lot of baseball people who are thinking along the same lines, which is why the guy is bouncing around a lot, despite his shiny minors numbers and his golden-boy pedigree.
I give Olson credit for mixing his pitches: he's throwing 21% curve balls and 13% changeups. This mix is the reason he baffled the raw hitters in AAA. But it ain't working in the majors if one of those pitches isn't an actual weapon. Olson has no weapons, not even command; he simply throws three "meh" pitches up there with sloppy command, and hopes to trick batters.
There *is* such a thing as just being too smart and professional for AAA. A John Halama type, given two years of ML experience, might easily go down to AAA and simply overmatch them.
D-O-V officially stamps Garrett Olson with the "Quad-A" label. I accept full responsibility for the assessment. :- )
........................
But that's not to say that the M's don't have the right to give Olson a look as a #5 starter. Nothing wrong with that. Quad-A players spend time in the majors. You just don't want them in the way when you have a real major leaguer, say, Brandon Morrow, available.
Jason Vargas, that's another question. I haven't decided whether the dude is simply red-hot or whether he can actually execute these pitches going forward. If the latter, no Quad-A expiration sticker for him. :- )
I think the issue is command, not stuff. His stuff is plenty enough for a lefty.
The command is just horrible...and I agree hes unlikely to be successful in the rotation this year. He has upside as a #3-4 in Safeco, but its anybody's guess as to whether he ever reaches it.
I personally want to see Jaku back in the rotation ASAP. Morrow can build up confidence in AAA until another spot opens up.
You could be right, Taro. Perhaps it is a sheer "mistakes" problem. The Ron Shandler paradigm is that this is one of a pitcher's 4 or 5 most basic skills: avoiding tater pitches.
BTW amigo, I am enjoying your analysis more and more and more. You were always real good, but you seem to be improving as you go. Hope you'll take that 100% as a compliment.
Two of which barely died on the track...one that got out...one that got off the fence.
The folks at BleedingBlueandTeal think Olson's problem is that his pitching slot is too low...causing the ball not to have a good downward plane as it reaches the plate...meaning his breaking pitches are lateral and his fastball is hittable.
I agree with their assessment. He's got bad command too...but his problem is his mechanics...they are not conducive to being effective.
Forget about it...he's never going to succeed with that motion.
...some way...the streak continues if the Mariner bullpen holds the Os to 1 run or less in the last three innings here...
Hard to believe...LOL
Thanks Doc, I've always enjoyed your analysis as well.
I think Dave at USSM offers some great stuff and Jeff from LL is even better, but really its not the type of analysis that I learn from at this point.
Whether its mechanical/pitching analysis, the strategical part of the game, the mental part of the game, the business part of he game, etc, you offer things from different angles that you can't get in the blogoshere. Its lightbulbs galore from my perspective.
The same is true of Sandy's stuff in a different way. I usually don't agree with Sandy's articles, but when I read him I feel like hes offered me a new way of looking at things.
Was wondering who else was watching that. :- ) Quite a salvo of mortar shots to the deep OF.
When you look and see the Olson "gives up fly balls," that doesn't mean popups.
Olson got lit up all night and gave up two runs...in Camden Yards!...with worse than even his usual command!...talk about your white-knuckle PQS...LOL
On the other hand...no one can make you feel like you're in a war zone with air raid sirens blaring like Russell Branyan...:D
Y'know, sometimes I think I'm blessed to be blind. (In that I don't actually get to see Seattle games except on the rarest of occasions). It means I have to rely 100% on stats - then infer other stuff based on discussion. To a degree, I think it prevents me from going all-in with most of my analyses.
What strikes me in this particular case is my two fav analysts, (Doc and Matt), are both on the same page with BOTH Olson and Jaku. That's the kind of tag team that makes me REALLY stop and question my position. But, it also makes me appreciate the magic that is conjured when watching athletic artistry. I had heard all about B.J. Upton -- but when I got to see him in person, playing for the Bulls -- only then could I really understand why everyone was gaga over his defensive "potential", (while I was watching error counts that looked more like Ruthian home run counts).
We all watch sports - not simply for the scored - the wins and losses -- but for the athletic artistry. The 475 foot clout doesn't score more runs than the 380 footer in the 3rd row -- but it certainly is more fun to watch, (unless you're the opposition, of course).
With Olson and Jaku, however, I find myself with an interesting quandary.
Jaku -- eyeball assessment by nearly everyone -- "Great control -- fearless -- positive, positive, positive, positive." Results? Pedestrian to dreadful, as his ML K-rate is literally half of what he showed at Tacoma. But, BECAUSE he looks good, the concensus is that his performance will improve.
Olson - eyeball assessment by nearly everyone -- "Command and control are both sloppy -- he's erratic -- he's making way too many mistakes -- negative, negative, negative, negative." Results? Better K and Walk rates than Jaku. SERIOUS gopher problem thus far. BECAUSE he looks/(smells?) rancid on the mound, the concensus is that he's going to stink forever.
My perspective? The guy with 14 obvious flaws is the one MOST likely to improve. He's the guy who has obvious things to fix that hold the possibility of achieving better results. The guy who looks GREAT on the mound, but continues to struggle with results -- what do you do to fix his problems?
In truth, I have no expectations for Olson. He may learn and grow, he may be that AAAA pitcher. But, I do know the stats show that Olson had the superior HR rate in the minors, (0.6 HR while Jaku was 0.7). The walk rates were identical, and Olson had a 2-K edge.
I completely accept that some inferior minor leaguers go on to have superior major league careers. I just know that it is extremely rare to get significant improvement out of a 30 year old, and common to get significant improvement out of 25-year-old.
For me? Without eyeball knowledge of either pitcher? I'm gonna place my money on the guy with things to fix - and who is 5 years younger - as the one more likely to improve. Gil Meche had a gopher problem, (until he left Safeco, oddly enough).
Statistically, Olson feels more like Pineiro than Meche. Then again, Pineiro continues to flounder around as a #5 starter, (but somehow has still managed to amass a 77-73 W/L record to go with his 4.52 career ERA.
I'm not saying that Olson is going to have Pineiro's career. I'm just saying that (allowing that HR/9 rates are erratic, especially in small samples), that Olson is ALREADY doing a fair impression of Pineiro -- and he's only 25. So, any improvement at all could be significant. Guys like Pineiro or Jason Marquis, (as two examples), are the GOLD STANDARD for #5 starters. They put up unimpressive numbers - but somehow, beyond all reason, they just keep teams in games and at the end of the year, they've somehow managed to put together 10-9 or 9-11 seasons of invisible pitching. Having suffered thru the 4-15 of Silva or the 7-13 of Weaver, or the 8-15 of Ryan Franklin, (couldn't resist) -- I'd think the value of a plodder like Olson might be a little more apparent.
Jaku? I think he could be a valuable bullpen arm for the very reasons he's being lauded as a starter. And, like Franklin, I think he's in over his head as a starter.
But, it'll be fun to watch EITHER guy succeed.
...I've backed off on my positive assessment of Jakubauskas. His first several appearances made me think if he learned to pitch a little less predictably, his great command would make him a winner...but having watched him over the longer term, I actually think we were overstating his command, especially with his offspeed stuff. To be effective, a guy like Jaku with mediocre stuff needs a 3-pitch mix that he can throw for a strike at any time...what he has is a FASTBALL that he throw for a strike at any time, a nice curveball that he can't hit the broad side of a barn with and a change-up that appears to bounce more often than it finds the plate.
Last night was a prime example of this for Jak. When he got behind and needed something besides a well-located fastball, he tried throwing the curve six times...once for a foul ball strike, once for a called strike, twice well out of the zone for laughing balls, once in the dirt wide of the plate that Quiroz barely got in front of, and once about 54 feet for a massively wild pitch that cost the team a run.
He can trick his way around in the bullpen, but he'll never last as a starter unless he can learn to command that breaking ball and change-up.
As for Olson...I'm down on him for mostly mechanical reasons...but we shall see...maybe he'll fool me.
I still like Jaku in the rotation for exactly those reasons.
He already has a nice fastball and good command of it, it seems to me he could really benefit from mixing his pitches up more.
Olson has an inferior fastball, inferior fastball command, inferior offspeed command, an inferior curveball, but a better change. The ONLY thing hes got on Jaku is that he mixes his pitches up more often which has led to a better SwS%.
Jaku throws his fastball 75.6% of the time. He is EXTREMELY easy to get a read on unless he starts mixing the curve/change more. My guess is that this was EXACTLY the same approach he took in the minors which is why his strikeout rates have always been low, but his results have always been good (relying on good fastball command).
Even so, results-wise Jaku has outperformed Olson in the rotation. Jaku had a 4.59 tRA in the rotation against Olson's 7.96.
Question: Concerning his golden pedigree. Who's his dad.
After a 2-hit (2-HR), 1-walk, 4-K win, the numerical data continues to mount that Olson is a pretty good pitcher with one SIGNIFICANT problem -- gophers. ("I wantcha ta gayt rid of evry gofer on the course!")
But the gopher is actually the bad result, and doesn't idenfity the underlying problem. So, lacking eyeball data, I began wondering if there was any numerical data that might help. The sample sizes are tiny, so any thoughts are (at this point), conjecture. But, here's what I found. (These numbers don't include the 6/17 game)
Homers allowed = 7
Righties = 6
Lefties = 1
Lefties hit for better average and OBP, but righties are KILLING Olsen with power, (.500 slugging).
First pitch: 3-HRs -- (1571 OPS on first pitch -- 16-PAs; 7-Hit; 1-2B; 3-HR)
Other 4 HRs spread out over different counts.
3-HR with bases empty; 4-HR with a man on first;
0 outs -- 1 HR
1 out -- 2 HR
2 outs -- 4 HR
The PAs for 0/1/2 outs are roughly the same - but the OPS for 2-outs is 1153, while the OPS for 0 and 1 outs stand at .591 and .618.
It appears that Olson is prone to getting sloppy with 2-outs. His Fangraphs page also shows his FB is where most of the damage is being done against him.
Tentative conclusion: His curve and change are both major league capable. His FB is weak, but his errors with it seem to be concentrated in situations with 2-out and nobody in scoring position.
In checking the pitch-by-pitch log of the 6/17 game, the Kouzmanoff was a 0-out HR on an 0-2 pitch. But, the Headley HR was with 2-out and a man on first, another 0-2 count after three straight fouls. That makes 5 of 9 2-out HRs.
Maybe he gets overconfident with 2-outs. Maybe he just gets excited, since he's almost out of the inning. Maybe his FB is losing something when he's pitching from the stretch. But, the data still points me to the concept that while Olson has issues, (he cannot possibly survive with his current HR rate), that primarily, he's getting bitten badly by mistake pitches. My sense is that with 2-outs, he may be getting overly aggressive. (both of the HRs in SD came on 0-2 counts -- anyone ever heard the term waste pitch?).
He would seem to need to take a page from Batista - and learn when it is appropriate to nibble.
Why has he surrendered 9 HR in 37.2 IP?
His flyball percentage is currently at 54. Even using the standard 11% ratio, that projects to 7 HRs...in fact his HR/Fly is a very NON-inflated 13.8%.
Why is he giving up HRs? Because he's an extreme flyball pitcher. He's the same guy he was in 2008 when he gave up 17 dingers in 130-something innnigs except his flyball percentage is higher right now...I'm guessing that will calm down a bit if he gets more PT and he'll give up fewer longballs...though still too many.
It is what it is...he's Eric Milton.
Olson has a 13.8% HR/fly rate - the TEAM has a 6.3% HR/Fly rate. The HR/fly rate for the AL is 7.6%. How high does it have to get to qualify as non-inflated? Don't know where you're getting the 11% from - but my numbers are current 2009 from bbref.
Moreover, Olson has allowed 5 doubles and 9 HR.
Olson also has ONLY a 15% LD rate -- 4% under that for the team.
Olson's TTO computations lead to really bad profile mostly due to a HR rate that is completely bonkers. If you reverse the 2b/HR numbers, (9 doubles and 5 HRs), he'd end up looking a ton better by every TTO computation method around.
Olson isn't Milton, (at least no yet). I'm just saying, as a 25-year old with a total of 200 innings in the majors, I'm just stating that it is not only possible, but LIKELY that he has a lot more to learn about pitching.
HR/Fly is HR/OUTFIELD Fly...not HR/total fly. Historically, the HR/OUTFIELD fly is 11%. This year, the HR/OUTFIELD Fly is also close to 11%. Take the pop-ups out of your flyball numbers and you'll see it.
The HR/FLy that's listed at Fangraphs is also HR/OUTFIELD fly (FB - IFFB).
Okay, I went to Fangraphs, and sorted AL teams by HR/FB.
Only 3 teams pitching staffs have HR/FB above 11, (Yankees: 12.7; Jays 11.9; Os 11.1)
Of course, HR/FB is going to normally be impacted by park, (Yanks and Os no surprise here).
The Mariners TEAM HR/FB (including Olson's stats) is 8.0%, second only to KC at 7.8%.
Additionally, per Fangraphs, Olsen's HR/FB with the Orioles, in that bandbox was: 8.0 in 2007 and 9.5 in 2008.
The samples in all three seasons are small, (32-IP, 132-IP, 37-IP), but when I look at his pitch-type for his Major League career, I see a picture of a pitcher who is trying new stuff out. His FB% (64.2% this season), is the HIGHEST of his career. But, he ADDED the Curve this season, and has all but dropped the slider. His curve percentage in that 132-IP 2008 season was 0.2% -- and it's up to 16.2%.
Okay - the MPH indicates that they just reclassified his slider as a curve. That actually tells me that what he was throwing in 2008 was a curve that didn't. His 2008 slider went from -0.82 per 100 pitches and morphed into a +3.58 wins curve. That's a pitcher learning.
There's nothing to indicate Olson is going to stop learning at age 25. In point of fact, since his slurve is being reassessed -- that's likely an indication of WHY he appears to have suspect command, (while his BB/9 rate has gone: 7.79; 4.21; 3.11 in the past 3 seasons).
It's not that I think he's great today. He isn't. He's been more lucky than good thus far. I have no reservations in this regard. I'm just saying that his profile, (and the eyeball assessments of you and Doc), both suggest he hasn't gotten remotely close to what he is capable of becoming just yet.
Because of the relatively cooler weather HR/Fly tends to be a hair lower in the spring months...I'm guessing the AL average at this very moment is in the neighborhood of 10%, not 11%. But I'm going on historical normals for that statistic.
As for Olson learning...you do have a good point about his offspeed game improving. I think, however, that until he rides a little higher for his arm slot, his breaking ball is always going to be more slurvey and lateral than biting, which limits the damage he can do with it.
He's definitely improving his command compared to 2007 though...so that's a positive sign.