Me? I'm thinking Seattle likely has had a NUMBER of doubles-happy pitchers go through (undetected) - since the park is especially good at turning HRs into doubles. (Turns doubles into outs, too, of course).
IMO, the assumption that "he probably won't give up HRs" is based primarily on incredible faith in Safeco and dismissal of HR rate (1.3) at Tacoma, because the sample was small.
Honestly ... each time I discuss Pineda, I include my belief that he *WILL* eventually get there. I'm just not drinking the "He's Bob Gibson TODAY" Koolaid that seems to be going around.
Is he gonna strike guys out? Absolutely.
Is his control going to be impecabble? High confidence.
Is he gonna keep the ball in the park when facing guys like Dunn and Teixeira and Cabrerra instead of guys like Brad Nelson, Carp and Saunders? Not so fast, there Buckaroo.
Take Felix' HR rates: 1.1; 0.9; 0.8; 0.6 (last three years). It wasn't until Felix' 4th full season that he "put it ALL together". And that's when he jumped from 9-11 to 19-5. And, having read the discussions, he did not add some magic pitch after the 2008 season. His defense got better, yes. But, his HR rate dropped to 0.6, where it remains.
The HR rate is a "proxy" for all XBHs ... and a darn good one. But, the scale is so tight - and just one or two HRs in a season can skew that number, that I believe ISO is actually a more finely attuned stat for judging how hard a pitcher is getting hit.
Look at Vargas, Fister and Pauley in 2010:
Fister - 0.7 HR rate - .108 ISO
Vargas 0.8 HR rate - .148 ISO
Pauley 1.3 HR rate - .142 ISO
Because Pauley only had 90 innings, his HR rate is VERY susceptible to skewing. I think the ISO is a better tool for judging Pauley (and helps explain his better-than-Fister ERA to some degree).
I'm just saying if Pineda's ISO is high THIS YEAR, (which I expect it will be) - that is not a condemnation of him as a #2 SP.
Maddux, back in the day - in BAD years would run a .100 ISO -- but he was down in the 60s at his peak, and finished with a 108 for his career. Glavine was around 100 at his peak, retired with a 121 ISO. Smoltz had the best "stuff", but consistently ran the worst ISO of the Big Three, (which was still great, mind you), and ended at 123 - (never really had the off-the-charts great ISO, except during his reliever seasons - and he didn't have the extended Sunset that Mad Dog & Glavine had).
I'm just trying to manage expectations a little here.
Add new comment
1