Athletics Nation

I thought they had adopted the Chavy apporach

Which is take the meatballs and swing at the crap and strikeout and GIDP

Can we please not pretend that Cahill has pitched well?

Seriously, look past the shiny ERA, people.

OK, I'll do that if you promise to read what I write instead of what I could have written

I was responding to. "Yet after 3 starts, Cahill sits with a pretty 2.60 ERA, and it's not entirely a matter of luck."

It entirely is. To give credit to Cahill for his current ERA, (rather than luck, defense, etc) is akin to giving me credit for solving world poverty because I donated a dollar.

LOL. Uh-huh.

Actually, I think you do Cahill a certain amount of discredit

He’s made a huge jump in levels this season. Would anyone have been surprised if it had been too much for him, and he had consistently been giving up homers, and thus forth?

I don’t think anyone is trying to claim that he’s the next coming of Tim Lincecum, but it’s fair to say that in his three starts, he’s not looked totally overmatched. Those would be he first three big league starts, then.

To me, at least, that qualifies as success.

Also, to knock a pitcher for using his defense? Curious.

alea iacta est - April 22, 2009 reply

It just misses my point entirely

My point is that if you allow a lot of walks and few hits, and those few hits are only singles and a handful of doubles, you will have a lot of baserunners but will strand a lot of runners. It’s not coincidence that his ERA has exceeded the expectations of his WHIP. And he has a heck of a lot of work to do going forward.

"My point is that if you allow a lot of walks and few hits, and those few hits are only singles and a handful of doubles, you will have a lot of baserunners but will strand a lot of runners"

Well duh…

Sigh. I give up.

Someone else can try if they feel like it.

Well you've stated your point.

And I think your point, if that’s what you say it is, is pretty obvious.

What am I missing?

In short:

it’s not sustainable.

Cahill needs to start missing bats. NOBODY allows as many baserunners with such a low amount of strikeouts and has success long term.

Isn't that basically what I said here?

“It entirely is. To give credit to Cahill for his current ERA, (rather than luck, defense, etc) is akin to giving me credit for solving world poverty because I donated a dollar.”

I duno, probably.

But in my defense I’ve had a LOT of Chimay Blue tonight.

hey, I tried. but I have to go to bed now

alea iacta est - April 22, 2009 reply

only if you are lucky…

chri5 - April 22, 2009 reply

And that "duh"

is a defensive plus.

lynnzgal - April 22, 2009 reply

Defensive...as in attitude?

Not quite…

No, Defensive as in its easier to defend against.

lynnzgal - April 22, 2009 reply

Huh, never thought of it like that. Oh well.

for someone with the handle 'lenscrafters',

u really exhibit an extreme inability to see clearly

rktse - April 23, 2009 reply

lol. I didn't dare say it.

Oh shit, that's really clever

I guess I’m not seeing things clearly then, rkstse. You and Nico can have a good laugh at it.

I think the only line I had issue with was “Cahill sits with a pretty 2.60 ERA, and it’s not entirely a matter of luck.” Obviously, I disagree as the peripheral numbers seem to indicate the exact opposite. Apparently, Nico decides that I had no idea what he was talking about. I asked for clarification and I got a response that seems rather obvious and also derisive dismissal. Eh, at this point, I really don’t give a crap.

not really sure, but let me try

but I think Nico was sayin that the peripheral numbers are not good, but if you consider the hits are all groundball singles (Not knowing if thats true) the peripherals should not be judged the same way. Kinda like Knuckleball pitchers need deeper analysis, standard evaluations won’t apply.

Its interesting and I would hope that someone could look at it. I would like to read that.

I also have seen on this board people describe average, RsBI and ERA as shiny and pretty as to say “thoses dumb stats that hall of fame voters look at.”

"if you consider the hits are all groundball singles..."

His line drive percentage is pretty high. To me, that indicates while he may only be getting hit for some ground ball singles right now, he’s actually getting hit hard overall….it’s just due to luck and defense, the damage has been minimalized.

I did not

look up the LD rate, and saw you lower post. That indeed is not good data.

Are you saying the LD rate is not good data?

no

that his LD rate that you posted is not good.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I just wanted clarification before anyone else gets exasperated and tells me I’m not seeing things clearly.

It is a small sample

True.

But we are only looking at these three starts. In which CF and others are saying that Cahill has not been hit hard in his three starts while I’m refuting that.

Bah, excuse my crappy sentence construction.

Yeah, I do agree with your overall point about unsustainable peripherals.

As do I:

“I wouldn’t recommend that Trevor Cahill continue to allow 25 guys to reach base every 17.1 IP (a WHIP of 1.44) , and it’s a safe bet that if his walk ratio doesn’t come down below 6.75 / 9IP he is going to be in trouble.”

My point is, and continues to be, that as pitchers with 1.44 WHIPs go, Cahill is in a better position to strand runners due to the low BAA and SLG, kind of like the A’s were in a poor position to score their runners, despite a decent OBP, due to their low BA and SLG.

As for him being in AAA, I was among those who recommended it (I said I thought Anderson was ready, Cahill not quite, and I still feel that way).

Has it occurred to you that...

maybe, just maybe, the two factors I was talking about (luck and defense) are the main reasons why Cahill’s BAA and SLG is so low, and why he’s been able to strand so many runners….rather than anything he’s doing on his part?

No, I don't think that's true at all

I think sinkerballers who keep in the ball in the park and generate a ton of movement on their pitches can expect to reliably enjoy a lower BAA and SLG as one of the perks.

Sure.

That is, if you also manage to strike out batters, moderate walks, and keep your line drive percentage at a reasonable rate.

All of which, Cahill isn’t doing. You can say disagree all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that luck and defense is currently why Cahill is enjoying good results.

Cahill is in a better position to strand runners due to the low BAA and SLG

But that’s just evidence of his luck.

Particularly since groundballers should

have a higher BAA than flyballers, especially at the Coliseum.

and

if your point is Cahill should be in AAA, I totally agree. I have said it many times. I think he will do OK against Seattle and the Angels, but have trouble with good offensive teams.

Dana Eveland

Eveland is essentially doing the same thing as Cahill, except he is getting unlucky when they get the hits, and isn’t getting the same DPs as Cahill.

DP% – Cahill 18.2% Eveland 8.3%
BABIP – Cahill .222 Eveland .439
GB/FB – Cahill 2.23 Eveland 3.00
K/BB – Cahill 0.38!!! Eveland 1.00
ERA – Cahill 2.60 Eveland 7.36

Essentially Eveland is being a better groundball pitcher than Cahill this year but is getting all the bad luck. Not sure what the point of this is, beside the fact that walking people and giving up a lot of contact can be a terrible combination.

If you want to be effective at pitching to contact, you need to limit the free passes.

chri5 - April 22, 2009 reply

His ERA is bad. That's why everyone hates him.

It all goes back to the ERA.

Nico hated him even when he was getting good results last year.

He wears that as a badge of honor.

I don't get the Eveland hate.

The guy is a number 4 starter and he only has the ability to pitch like one. Why do people dislike him for not being able to pitch better than that? It’s like hating Jack Hannahan for not being to hit 30 homers a year.

Is that so wrong?

Because it’s number 3 on my list of reasons for hating Jack Hannahan.

alox - April 23, 2009 reply

lol, high expecatations much?

A's fan.

That about sums it up doesn’t it?

alox - April 23, 2009 reply

I've maintained that people are ragging on Eveland too much, too

but hey, it bardly matters, really, does it? the decision’s not going to be made here

alea iacta est - April 22, 2009 reply

Eveland will never be a good pitcher

IMO

Cahill can get by with his good sinker for the most part. Cannot say that about Eveland.

Cahill has to cut the walks down or he will be in trouble. I don’t know that he needs to be a great strikeout pitcher if he keeps the ball down he will gets lots of groundballs as he does when he pitches well. The walks are bothersome

He doesn't need to be a great strikeout pitcher

But it sure is more than a coincidence that EVERY pitcher who has had a good career strikes out more guys than they walk.

Cahill is going to be a better pitcher than Eveland. chri5's point is that at the

moment he’s isn’t any better. Look at Eveland’s results and but for the grace of luck there goes Cahill.

pitchers who pitch to contact really need a cutter

rktse - April 23, 2009 reply

Or a second job

Bank teller is good. Also taxidermist.

Happy Birthday Trainman!

Thanks WC

Appreciate it.

I wish I could turn the clock back and start counting down.

Trainman - April 23, 2009 reply

No need! I just increase my life expectancy each year.

tRA -- Cahill 6.84, Eveland 3.54

Link

Not all ground balls are the same

Eveland scream past infielders. Cahill’s roll (slowly/choppily) towards infielders.

Also, Eveland is a mess on the mound. He’s got the poise of a 21 year old. Cahill/Anderson have poise of a 30-Year Old.

I’m not sure what I’m saying, but I know that Cahill has pitched better than Eveland. Always will (over long stretches).

Should read: “Eveland’s groundballs scream past infielders. Cahill’s roll (slowly/choppily) towards infielders.”

This is an interesting observation. How would someone confirm this?

It would be more difficult for Cahill if Geren kept playing the infield in for him too.

And put Crosby at 3B instead of Chavez

How do I already have painful flashbacks?

So do you have any evidence that Eveland's groundballs "scream" past infielders more than Cahill's?

Or are you just basing that off your selective memory?

I’m not sure what I’m saying, but I know that Cahill has pitched better than Eveland.

That’s not what the numbers say…but believe whatever you want.

Cahill's ball moves a lot more

So yeah, Cahill is missing the barrel of the bat more often, thus, less hard hits/line drive grounders…. I see Cahill’s ball move more. The catcher says the same thing (It’s tough to catch the movement). And opposing batters say the same thing about Cahill’s movement. Scouts and the like (Keith Law claims Trevor Cahill is a “worm killer”) compare him to some of the best sinkerballers in the game, too. Eveland doesn’t get nearly that praise. Never has, never will.

Personally, I think Eveland will be out of the Starting Rotation in August/September. The rotation will probably be Braden/Cahill/Anderson/Mazzaro/Gio. Holliday will be traded before or @ the trade deadline (June/July), and I’m hoping Eveland (out of options?) is sent along with Holliday to get us some left-side-of-the-IF talent.

"So yeah, Cahill is missing the barrel of the bat more often, thus, less hard hits/line drive grounders"

That’s, yet again, not true.

Cahill 2009 LD%: 22.2%
Eveland 2009 LD%: 17.2%

See the problem with human based observation? You’re seeing what you want to see regardless of reality.

I’ll take Cahill. You can have Eveland.

Colorado Fan - April 26, 2009 reply

Fangraphs now has Pitch Fx data for Eveland

Link We can see that so far he’s throwing his fastball a lot less than last year and his slider a lot more. He’s newly broken out the cutter and two-seam FB. Also his fastball is moving somewhat less than last year and his slider a lot less.

I’m not sure what this means in terms how hard grounders are hit off him, but it’s curious nonetheless.

I don’t see Cahill’s Pitch Fx data on Fangraphs.

BTW Keith Law is not a scout. He just tries to impersonate one.

The notion that pitchers control their BABIP is demonstrably false

I’ll qualify that occasionally there is a very rare pitcher who seems to have a sustainably lower BABIP than would be predicted from peripherals, but they are few and far between, and the magnitude of the skill is significantly smaller than the variance. More importantly, the range of skill sets in baseball is very, very narrow in this regard. The result of the pitch once it leaves the bat is largely a matter of luck, and any denial of this is just an attempt to justify a pre-held but ultimately false belief that pitchers ability to generate weak contact is a repeatable skill.

MrIncognito - April 23, 2009 reply

Yup.

I assume when you refer to these "very rare" pitchers you mean knuckleballers

and extreme flyballers, and Cahill is neither.

There are articles out there which seem to demonstrate that some pitchers actually do have slightly lower BABIPs, but like I said the impact of the skill is like an order of magnitude lower than the variance, so it’s pretty much impossible to separate out until you have like a career’s worth of data.

MrIncognito - April 25, 2009 reply

Depends on what you mean by overmatched...

Personally I define it as putting up a 5/13 K/BB and using a large amount of luck and stellar defensive plays to maintain a deceptively good ERA.

To be fair, it’s not his fault for pitching badly. I agree that he’s pitching about as well as could be expected (except somehow you seem to think his pitching is alright.) Like I’ve said since the beginning of the season, management made a huge mistake putting him + Anderson in the rotation.

I think it's about expectations

and also, how much of an improvement you expect to see. It sounds to me like you expect them to struggle going forward. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re not. Time will tell, I guess.

It doesn’t personally bother me all that much whether it was a good decision, or a bad decision, at this stage – it’s one that’s been made, and the results have been better than they could have been, thus far. Which, clearly, is no guarantee of what will happen in the future.

alea iacta est - April 22, 2009 reply

Well K/BB is relatively alright at predicting future performance

So maybe, that’s why I’m expecting him to struggle going forward.

I agree that it would've been nice to give them at least a little time in AAA...

…but list not one but two other viable SP options the team had going into April (not including Gallagher).

Jackson23 - April 22, 2009 reply

I still contend

It’s the right move. Cahill/Anderson are going to learn a TON this year. Now if they acted like say…. Dana Eveland on the mound, then I think we should worry. Having Cahll/Anderson getting 120-160 MLB innings in 2009, makes 2010’s rotation that much better… Isn’t that the year we are supposed to “contend”?

Maybe my 2009 expectations are lower than others.

I agree - the dividends will be paid in 2010,

when Holliday is gone but a good team remains. The A’s can still add pieces in the off-season.

"It’s the right move. Cahill/Anderson are going to learn a TON this year."

You act like improvement is a guarantee. It’s very likely that rushing a prospect is severely detrimental to development, in fact, I’d say that’s a more likely outcome based on the past record of hundreds of top prospects who flamed out in the majors.

It is very difficult for any pitcher, even a top prospect, to become a established pitcher in the majors, let alone a star. You’re not helping the odds by rushing him.

Well

I guess have faith in the A’s as an organization. In the Billy Beane era, I can’t recall a pitching prospect being rushed, and never seeing success again (Dan Meyer doesn’t count). Cahill/Anderson both appear very, very composed for 21 year old, rookie pitchers. The talent is there. The mental makeup is there (so it seems). If they’re good enough, then they’ll continue to become better pitchers. Every prospect is different.

Sure.

Before Anderson and Cahill, Beane and co. also never rushed two 20 year old prospects with about 5 starts a piece in AA straight to the majors.

I guess I’m just saying that Beane isn’t incapable of making a mistake.

I agree

Colorado Fan - April 26, 2009 reply

ERA is the bottom line

Much the same way I look at OBP. It aint worth a fuck if the runs aren’t on the board at the end of the day

Runs scored is the bottom line

when looking at the hitting side of it.

It sure doesn’t take a genius to figure that out

"ERA is the bottom line"

Nah..

RA is even further bottom than ERA

He does own a 174 ERA+

Syphon - April 22, 2009 reply

Hey, that's Chien-Ming Wang's ERA!

Not sure what the plus sign is for, though.

1.74 is a great ERA

What’s that decimal point for?

VORP is too nerdy - April 22, 2009 reply

Getting on base isn't the biggest problem, IMO

It’s the lack of slugging. We have guys who can consistently get on base, but they’re not very good at moving runners. Walks don’t move runners very well, hits do. The A’s seem to have issues with low batting averages and thus low slugging percentages year after year.

Both are important

There’s nothing wrong with walking… but I agree with the lack of slugging. The A’s want hitters who walk and hit for power.. the problem is the rest of baseball has caught up with Oalkand in the hunt for those players.

McBain - April 22, 2009 reply

And when Oakland gets those players, they stop HRing!

:(

Cahill is not going to be a lights-out guy who racks up 10+ K's per game.

He’s going to get people to hit ground balls with his sinker, and assuming the infield behind him is on the ball (pardon the pun), runners should get thrown out. At this point in his early career I’ll take all the stats he’s put up except the walks, and those are tempered by the fact that he’s only started twice has obviously had initial struggles with his control. So hopefully he’ll focus on getting those walks down and letting the rest develop as it has been.

Jackson23 - April 22, 2009 reply

I think he made some strides in Toronto, bringing his velocity

down into the high 80s and showing far more control and just as much great sinking action. It didn’t last throughout the start but it was a step in the right direction.

Yeah, he definitely looked better, and his second game was also an improvement over his first.

And my bad, I think he’s made three starts now, not two. Look forward to seeing him pitch Friday.

Jackson23 - April 22, 2009 reply

Yes. First start (Angels) was really wobbly

Second start (Seattle) he did walk 3 and hit one in the first 3 innings, despite not allowing a hit. But the next 3 innings he was fantastic. Third start (Toronto) he was brilliant in the 1st, then got wild again the rest of the start.

Exactly. It's so exciting, just wait until next year when he's ready to go and he's spent 2009 in Sacramento learning how to pitch

oh.

Sacramento? Don't you mean banished to long relief,

ne’er to see the mound again?

bookmarked. both mentally and literally.

sorry, but this has to be nominated as one of the worst diaries of the 2009 season.

ANti-dentite - April 23, 2009 reply

Ouch, that's quite a proclamation.

What exactly is your beef with it?

not sure

still deciding between the void of logic or the pointlessness.

ANti-dentite - April 23, 2009 reply

What are the other nominations?

Let’s have a poll to determine the winner!

Bookmarked

…and nominated as something that should have been deleted before pressing the Reply button at 1:15AM. Just not necessary.

Personally, I like the simplicity of it.

Thanks, CF. I think many missed the point,

which is that it’s obvious that Cahill has allowed a lot of people to “not make outs” and a little less obvious that if you allow a low BA and a low slugging pct, you can maintain a higher ratio of LOB/runs scored, but less obvious yet – and kind of interesting, IMO – to reflect on the fact that the A’s offense was maddeningly able to reach base better than it could score runs and that it wasn’t just “luck”…it was the “better OBP but lousy BA and SLG” that caused it, and here’s Cahill experiencing the same thing (only in the A’s favor this time).

Yeah, I understand the parallel.

I think it’s just that, unfortunately for the A’s now, it’s worth mentioning that OBP/SLG is reliable for hitters, but not for pitchers. And BA doesn’t stabilize.

How is SLG not reliable for pitchers?

I’m honestly asking, because if Trevor Cahill were to pitch 150 Innings this year, I think he’d probably only give up about 10 HR’s.

HR rate and HR/FB do stabilize (~300 PA), but doubles and triples don't stabilize to my knowledge.

One problem Cahill will have going forward,

is that while he may not allow very many HRs, his HR/9IP ratio will not be 0.0, which is what it is right now.

The tRA of 6.84 takes that into account

Cahill has not "allowed" a low BA

In fact, GB’s generate high BABIP. Cahill’s BABIP is luck. It will get worse.

GB pitchers allow more base runners but compensate by allowing lower SLG and high double play rates. You are wrong about strand rates though – the best way to strand runners is to strike people out. More out means more runners stranded.

MrIncognito - April 23, 2009 reply

what does replying at 12:15 in the am have to do with anything?

Speaking of unnecessary.

ANti-dentite - April 23, 2009 reply

I'm glad the results have been looking good for Cahill thusfar,

but this just isn’t going to continue. Three rotation spots, and not the offense, are what Oakland needs to fix.

I'd say two spots, but I'd agree

Outman and Eveland are real problems. Cahill just needs to develop, which he would do at AAA or here. Time should solve his problems, whereas with Outman and Eveland, I think you have a reliever and a #5 starter taking up 2/5 of a rotation and being asked to fill spots they are not up to filling.

Well, I wouldn't remove Eveland from the rotation.

I think he’s earned a little leeway with his pitching last season. He needs to miss more bats and cut the walks, but I’d put any decision off for at least 2 weeks. His peripherals are no worse than the new guys who would stay or replace him.

I'd replace him IF (when) there were good options

From Gallagher, Gio, and Duke, two are not physically yet ready and one is non grata for reasons I don’t understand. And Mazzaro is not yet ready for the show. I’d be replacing Outman first, Eveland second, but only when there are actual better options. (IMO, Gallagher already is for Outman.)

Well

Cahill just needs to develop, which he would do at AAA or here

Don’t pitchers “nibble” more when they’re feeling like they’re a bit out of their league. When they fear being hit hard? Is it possible Cahill’s control problems start with the feeling in his own head that this was a little too fast?

I’m not sure Cahill has been rushed, or that it’s hurting his performance. But I am sure that it’s a possibility. I’m also sure it could have negative long term effects, to the extent that nibbling/lack of confidence become a habit.

ohmangoAs - April 23, 2009 reply

I don't see Cahill nibbling; I just see him struggling

to repeat his delivery and know where the ball he throws with so much movement will actually land in Suzuki’s mitt. The more repetitions, the better this will get.

Nico - April 24, 2009 reply

Do we call? Od Perez or Mulder's agent

I guess 6-8 teams are looking at Mulder right now, but what about Od Perez? We need to fix the rotation fast or this season is going to slip by us fast. Also – get rid of Dan Giese

ryanmoser - April 23, 2009 reply

Odalis Perez

is not a good option IMO

I remember his AL stats all too well

Trainman - April 23, 2009 reply

I’m hoping Mulder will come back for the last spot, Duke for another, and Gallagher should be in there right now. This unofficial blacklisting of players is stupid.

Also, what’s up with the black cloud over all the guys? I hope it’s just a hangover road trip from the Seattle sweep, but it’s a little disturbing.

dan giese

is good for 2 innings max, anything more than that we might as well serve up batting practice to the opposing team……

Wreckonized - April 23, 2009 reply

I have been very impressed with Cahill and Braden has been ok

Anderson, Eveland and Outman have been just terrible, I say we take a chance on Mulder. For one thing he can’t do any worse and he will come dirt cheap

Anderson, terrible? I wouldn’t link him in with “terrible” just yet. In 2 games, he had 2 bad innings (Seattle & Boston). He got smacked around a little in the New Yankee Stadium, but who hasn’t?

well done nico

i got a good chuckle out of your closing line. with the team playing so crappily right now, it was good to laugh at it instead of getting any more frustrated.

i didn’t interpret your post as an attempt to talk up cahill, just as an observation that would/might spark some discussion. no need for everybody to jump all over you and start screaming about the sky falling because the team looks like a bunch of overmatched chumps right now… it’s just basesball!

jlanning17 - April 23, 2009 reply

Exactly! I wrote it partly because the NYY series was so frustrating

that I thought something unrelated to the current losing streak would be nice. I’m not talking up Cahill at all. 13BB/5K tells you a lot and it’s not good stuff.

Yeah but the crazy amount of groundballs he gets shows how nasty his sinker is

If he can get his curve working a little better his BB to K ratio will level off

I have been really down lately

I know it’s only a game. Last season I was ready for the sucking and actually we did awesome before beane traded everyone away. This year I expected the A’s to be very competitive, I still hope they are. They will not be competitive with the pitching staff they have right now and Geren Philipe Alouing his bullpen. Giambi has looked horrible, Chavy has been hurt (I’m shocked) and Holliday has no power. I really hope they turn it around starting tomorrow night!

Frankly, I feel like I needed the day off more than the team did

Now I’m raring to go out and kick some Tampa butt!

me too

Athletic - April 24, 2009 reply

Hey we're only 4 games out!