verycoolnin

Zach Britton 2017 Outlook

103 posts in this topic

Britton went 47/47 in saves with a 0.54 ERA in 2016.  It's going to be hard to beat that but he still should be one of the best closers in baseball again.  His avg sinkerball velocity went up a click to 96.25 MPH the previous season.  At 28, he should still maintain that velocity.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, verycoolnin said:

Britton went 47/47 in saves with a 0.54 ERA in 2016.  It's going to be hard to beat that but he still should be one of the best closers in baseball again.  His avg sinkerball velocity went up a click to 96.25 MPH the previous season.  At 28, he should still maintain that velocity.   

He's absolutely incredible, and would've been my Cy Young vote.

Only issue is he's not as good for fantasy as Chapman/Jansen because he doesn't get the gaudy Ks, but someone will draft him like he is as valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mysonx3 said:

He's absolutely incredible, and would've been my Cy Young vote.

Only issue is he's not as good for fantasy as Chapman/Jansen because he doesn't get the gaudy Ks, but someone will draft him like he is as valuable.

I don't think he should have won the Cy Young.  He was a starter but just couldn't maintain and command the mid 90s sinker for a full game.  He started 5-0 his rookie season, but downhill after that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, verycoolnin said:

I don't think he should have won the Cy Young.  He was a starter but just couldn't maintain and command the mid 90s sinker for a full game.  He started 5-0 his rookie season, but downhill after that. 

What does what he did in previous years have to do with how valuable his pitching was in 2016?

I get it, he was a failed starter. But that doesn't make what he did as a RP less valuable. 

I don't care if he used to be a starting pitcher or if he used to be a ballerina, I have zero doubt he was the most valuable pitcher in the AL last year, and for reason he should've won the Cy Young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mysonx3 said:

What does what he did in previous years have to do with how valuable his pitching was in 2016?

I get it, he was a failed starter. But that doesn't make what he did as a RP less valuable. 

I don't care if he used to be a starting pitcher or if he used to be a ballerina, I have zero doubt he was the most valuable pitcher in the AL last year, and for reason he should've won the Cy Young.

I'm not saying you're wrong.  We just have different opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a starting pitcher throughout a 162 game season is more demanding with the innings pitched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, verycoolnin said:

I'm not saying you're wrong.  We just have different opinions. 

I'm just trying to figure out why anything he did prior to 2016 should impact whether he should win the CY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, verycoolnin said:

Being a starting pitcher throughout a 162 game season is more demanding with the innings pitched.

Is it 6 times more demanding? Because Britton was 6 times less likely to allow a run than Verlander or Porcello.

I don't care what's more demanding, I care what was more valuable. In my opinion, that was Britton being six times less likely to allow a run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mysonx3 said:

I'm just trying to figure out why anything he did prior to 2016 should impact whether he should win the CY

 

It shouldn't. Personally, I don't like giving a closer the Cy Young, but his season was historically dominant. 

Edited by Fuzzy_Slippers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think the Cy Young argument is absurd. Innings matter. Was Britton insane? Of course. He also pitched 67 innings. If you offered me Verlanders' 2016 stats or Britton's in a real life team, I'm taking Verlander's and there's about zero hesitation. I'd rather have a 3 ERA for 228 Innings than a 0.54 over 67 Innings any day of the week. I don't understand the "most valuable pitcher argument" because most metrics we have about "value" don't show that at all. Verlander was twice as valuable in terms of fWAR. 

 

Also I think it's the easy route to say Britton won't be as good as those guys because of Ks. He could easily be the #1 closer with striking out just a batter an inning. It was more the difference in his WHIP (0.84 v. 0.67) which had a 0.71 point differential on the Player Rater than the Ks (74 v 104 ; 0.5 point differential) which caused Jansen to beat him for #1 closer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britton was a guy I targeted everywhere the past couple of years...

 

It isn't just his elite stats, it's his stuff that is filthy. It is really hard to trust production from a guy with middling stuff...look at Joe Blanton's stats for example, and he **** the bed in the playoffs because that's more like his true talent.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/velo.php?player=502154&time=month&startDate=03/30/2007&endDate=12/22/2016&s_type=2

 

Look at his velo increase from 13 to 14 and 14 to 15, and it corresponds with his jumps in performance. 2016 was similar to 2015 velo wise, but his improvements can just be made to refining his game.

 

97+ mph with sink is so hard to hit...Britton's GB rate is one of the best in MLB history. It's been increasing every year. 58% in 2013 to 75% to 79% to 80% last year.

We all should know Britton is a super stud...maybe wasted my time with the above. Basically I don't expect him to regress much. ERA around 1 is what I expect, which is insane, with sub 1 WHIP, 4-5 k/bb...

Oh yeah, he also should be very fresh entering 2017...not too taxing of a workload in the playoffs lol

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, taobball said:

I honestly think the Cy Young argument is absurd. Innings matter. Was Britton insane? Of course. He also pitched 67 innings. If you offered me Verlanders' 2016 stats or Britton's in a real life team, I'm taking Verlander's and there's about zero hesitation. I'd rather have a 3 ERA for 228 Innings than a 0.54 over 67 Innings any day of the week. I don't understand the "most valuable pitcher argument" because most metrics we have about "value" don't show that at all. Verlander was twice as valuable in terms of fWAR. 

 

Also I think it's the easy route to say Britton won't be as good as those guys because of Ks. He could easily be the #1 closer with striking out just a batter an inning. It was more the difference in his WHIP (0.84 v. 0.67) which had a 0.71 point differential on the Player Rater than the Ks (74 v 104 ; 0.5 point differential) which caused Jansen to beat him for #1 closer. 

fWAR is an absolutely atrocious measure of pitcher value, especially for relievers. fWAR assumes that all batted balls are the same, which has been proven to be untrue several times over. 

WAR of any type doesn't come close to evaluating RP value because they come with the advantage that you can choose your spots to use them to maximize value. 

Sure Verlander threw 3.4 times more innings, but he was also 5.5 times more likely to allow a run. He prevented just as many runs as Verlander, AND those runs he prevented were almost entirely in high leverage situations, whereas Verlander's runs prevented came on a strict schedule (every five games) and couldn't be maximized. 

They prevented about the same number of runs, so give me the flexibility of Britton over the rigidity of Verlander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mysonx3 said:

fWAR is an absolutely atrocious measure of pitcher value, especially for relievers. fWAR assumes that all batted balls are the same, which has been proven to be untrue several times over. 

WAR of any type doesn't come close to evaluating RP value because they come with the advantage that you can choose your spots to use them to maximize value. 

Sure Verlander threw 3.4 times more innings, but he was also 5.5 times more likely to allow a run. He prevented just as many runs as Verlander, AND those runs he prevented were almost entirely in high leverage situations, whereas Verlander's runs prevented came on a strict schedule (every five games) and couldn't be maximized. 

They prevented about the same number of runs, so give me the flexibility of Britton over the rigidity of Verlander

 

I mean okay, if that's the way you wanna term it fine, I'll take 220 innings of elite rigidity over 65 innings of more elite flexibility. 

 

We wont come to terms on this... To me it's like arguing Alex Guerrrero as the mid season MVP the year he had like 6 straight PH homers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, taobball said:

 

I mean okay, if that's the way you wanna term it fine, I'll take 220 innings of elite rigidity over 65 innings of more elite flexibility. 

 

We wont come to terms on this... To me it's like arguing Alex Guerrrero as the mid season MVP the year he had like 6 straight PH homers.

Totally respect the opinion of taking Verlander, I'm just stating the case for Britton.

The Guerrero example is horrible because he wasn't far and away the most dominant hitter on a per AB basis like Britton was on a per IP basis. Verlander was 5.5 times more likely to allow a run. That'd be like if Guerrero had OPSd 5.000.

Just because they were both elite doesn't mean their per IP effectiveness was in the same stratosphere

Edited by mysonx3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mysonx3 said:

Totally respect the opinion of taking Verlander, I'm just stating the case for Britton.

The Guerrero example is horrible because he wasn't far and away the most dominant hitter on a per AB basis like Britton was on a per IP basis. Verlander was 5.5 times more likely to allow a run. That'd be like if Guerrero had OPSd 5.000

 

I understand, my point is supposed to be a bit hyperbolic. But you're more than stating the case your'e saying you agree with it. To me, the case is utterly absurd. I just can't justify it with the lack of innings. I understand you can't control what you can't control, but i'm never giving a relief pitcher who has performed in under 70 Innings hte cy young when we have elite pitchers playing three to four times more often. Tha'ts why WAR isn't completely irrelevant to me even if it's not a good metric in these terms. WAR weights time played on the field. I weight time played on the field. Britton allowed a lot fewer runs and a lot fewer runs per time played. He also SAW far more of his team playing from the bench, and on an individual game basis didn't impact a game to teh extent of Verlander. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we all at least agree Verlander would have been a better choice than Porcello?

 

Anyways, I agree with @mysonx3 re issues with fWAR, especially for relievers. fWAR for pitching is kind of bizarre, will always overrate the Pinedas of the world with sexy peripherals and awful performances. I thought the whole point of WAR was finding a figure for how the player actually performed...not how they "should have" performed. But maybe that's a philosophical issue I have with fWAR for pitching.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@taobball You're ignoring the point that, sure, Verlander threw 3.5 times as many innings but was also more than 5.5 times less effective. 

If their effectiveness wasn't TWO AND A HALF RUNS different, then your argument that "they're both elite but Verlander threw more innings" would make sense. That argument makes the assumption that their performance is in the same stratosphere, which couldn't be farther from the truth. 

You know another stat that factors in volume? WPA. Britton mops the floor with Verlander when it comes to actually helping his team win games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a pitcher threw 800 innings (~3.5 times what Verlander threw, like Verlander was ~3.5 times what Britton threw) with a 5.5 ERA (same gap as between Verlander and Britton), would you vote for them for Cy Young? Because all the arguments you're making would be just as true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing ignoring with not caring. I don't mean to be rude but you're above comparison is far more awful than the Alex Guerrero one. I mean literally awful. If a pitcher had a 5.5 ERA over 800 Innings, he wouldn't be better than average, so why would that ever be an argument? For real?

 

WPA is a HORRID stat to use. It's context driven. Britton gets 90+% of his context in the ninth inning, where the most Win probability shift is likely to occur.

 

Changing the minimum innings to 50, here are the RP in the top 30 in WPA:
1. Britton
2. Miller
8. Sam Dyson
11. Mark Melancon
13. Jeremy Jeffress
15. Roberto Osuna
16. Aroldis Chapman
20. Will Harris
23. Oh
24. Ramos
26. Otero
27. Allen
28. Mychal Given

 

Do you think this metric isn't EXTREMELY slanted towards relief pitchers? So I suppose you think that Sam Dyson deserves the nomination over Verlander as well? Dan Otero the 26th most valuable pitcher in all of baseball? It's a terrible metric in this circumstance. 

 

The problem with your argument about pure run prevention is that it's slanted towards being a relief pitcher. Jansen and Chapman also had incredible ERAs compared to Verlanders. The top closer in baseball almost always prevents runs at a higher rate than the top starters. Why aren't we making this case every year then? You have to compare the ERA by the position and not cross positionally to even begin this discussion. 

 

When a system would reward Britton for a three-out three-run save and penalize Verlander for a 1 ER complete game, it's inherently flawed whether you agree or not. Comparing reliever and starter ERA to me is foolishness. They aren't the same position. If Verlander and Britton play in the same game and Verlander pitched 8 innings and gave up 1 run and Britton pitches the ninth and didn't give up any, you'd support him being the more important pitcher in that game if the team won 2-1? You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you on that. 

 

You fairly got on someone for bringing up Brittons failure as a starter, however I believe that's a fair argument attacked from the wrong side: how many times did Britton have to face a hitter twice in 2016? None? Okay. How many times a game did Britton have to face a teams best three hitters? Rarely ever? 50% of games? Whereas Verlander had to play those top three probably three to four times an appearance? Translation: What Verlander has to do is harder, and not fair to compare directly, as we recognize every year but forget occasionally when someone has a special season. 

 

The RP position is bizarre by the evaluation of any sport. It is perhaps the only position in sports that really is based on the principle of perfection. When Britton gives up a run, he has very likely failed in his job. Yes that makes it harder on a per inning basis but is also another reason why you simply have to view the positions differently. 

 

Britton would not be in my top 10 for the Cy. Not even close. And I always say it when I feel like I'm about to be rude, but I don't mean to be rude, but the argument for Britton for Cy to me is kinda just stupid. It's one we can debate all day if you want but it's really stupid and makes zero baseball sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, taobball said:

You're confusing ignoring with not caring. I don't mean to be rude but you're above comparison is far more awful than the Alex Guerrero one. I mean literally awful. If a pitcher had a 5.5 ERA over 800 Innings, he wouldn't be better than average, so why would that ever be an argument? For real?

 

WPA is a HORRID stat to use. It's context driven. Britton gets 90+% of his context in the ninth inning, where the most Win probability shift is likely to occur.

 

Changing the minimum innings to 50, here are the RP in the top 30 in WPA:
1. Britton
2. Miller
8. Sam Dyson
11. Mark Melancon
13. Jeremy Jeffress
15. Roberto Osuna
16. Aroldis Chapman
20. Will Harris
23. Oh
24. Ramos
26. Otero
27. Allen
28. Mychal Given

 

Do you think this metric isn't EXTREMELY slanted towards relief pitchers? So I suppose you think that Sam Dyson deserves the nomination over Verlander as well? Dan Otero the 26th most valuable pitcher in all of baseball? It's a terrible metric in this circumstance. 

 

The problem with your argument about pure run prevention is that it's slanted towards being a relief pitcher. Jansen and Chapman also had incredible ERAs compared to Verlanders. The top closer in baseball almost always prevents runs at a higher rate than the top starters. Why aren't we making this case every year then? You have to compare the ERA by the position and not cross positionally to even begin this discussion. 

 

When a system would reward Britton for a three-out three-run save and penalize Verlander for a 1 ER complete game, it's inherently flawed whether you agree or not. Comparing reliever and starter ERA to me is foolishness. They aren't the same position. If Verlander and Britton play in the same game and Verlander pitched 8 innings and gave up 1 run and Britton pitches the ninth and didn't give up any, you'd support him being the more important pitcher in that game if the team won 2-1? You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you on that. 

 

You fairly got on someone for bringing up Brittons failure as a starter, however I believe that's a fair argument attacked from the wrong side: how many times did Britton have to face a hitter twice in 2016? None? Okay. How many times a game did Britton have to face a teams best three hitters? Rarely ever? 50% of games? Whereas Verlander had to play those top three probably three to four times an appearance? Translation: What Verlander has to do is harder, and not fair to compare directly, as we recognize every year but forget occasionally when someone has a special season. 

 

The RP position is bizarre by the evaluation of any sport. It is perhaps the only position in sports that really is based on the principle of perfection. When Britton gives up a run, he has very likely failed in his job. Yes that makes it harder on a per inning basis but is also another reason why you simply have to view the positions differently. 

 

Britton would not be in my top 10 for the Cy. Not even close. And I always say it when I feel like I'm about to be rude, but I don't mean to be rude, but the argument for Britton for Cy to me is kinda just stupid. It's one we can debate all day if you want but it's really stupid and makes zero baseball sense to me.

What you say about WPA to justify ignoring it is precisely WHY it's the ideal stat for RP evaluation. You say it's context dependent - so is RP value.

If Britton wouldn't make your top 10, you're clearly so against the idea of a RP winning that there's no point even discussing it. Britton was a top 10 pitcher in the American League last year, and that's a fact there's no debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mysonx3 said:

What you say about WPA to justify ignoring it is precisely WHY it's the ideal stat for RP evaluation. You say it's context dependent - so is RP value.

If Britton wouldn't make your top 10, you're clearly so against the idea of a RP winning that there's no point even discussing it. Britton was a top 10 pitcher in the American League last year, and that's a fact there's no debating.

 

When you have the highest difference in win probability in the ninth and the least in the first, and one guy pitches every first inning and the other pitches every ninth, you don't see this is a place where this context would be faulty?

 

It has little to do with the reward... If I were buying last years stats id take 10 pitchers stats in the AL over Britton. From last season. Because what they're doing has a lower, VASTLY lower replacement level. When every closer has a sub-3 era you can't equate them to a position where no starter in the entire league had a sub-3 era. It's a poor argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, taobball said:

 

When you have the highest difference in win probability in the ninth and the least in the first, and one guy pitches every first inning and the other pitches every ninth, you don't see this is a place where this context would be faulty?

 

It has little to do with the reward... If I were buying last years stats id take 10 pitchers stats in the AL over Britton. From last season. Because what they're doing has a lower, VASTLY lower replacement level. When every closer has a sub-3 era you can't equate them to a position where no starter in the entire league had a sub-3 era. It's a poor argument. 

You absolutely can equate them because EVERY RUN COUNTS THE SAME.

I don't view the ninth inning having more value than the first as a flaw. It's exactly the point I'm trying to make, in fact. Britton pitched more valuable innings.

Britton saved about as many runs as Verlander and saved FAR more important runs. Therefore his performance was far more valuable to his team.

Are you arguing that Verlander preventing a run in a blowout is as valuable as Britton preventing a run in a close game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mysonx3 said:

You absolutely can equate them because EVERY RUN COUNTS THE SAME.

I don't view the ninth inning having more value than the first as a flaw. It's exactly the point I'm trying to make, in fact. Britton pitched more valuable innings.

Britton saved about as many runs as Verlander and saved FAR more important runs. Therefore his performance was far more valuable to his team.

Are you arguing that Verlander preventing a run in a blowout is as valuable as Britton preventing a run in a close game?

 

Im at work but do you advocate a reliever every year or is this one special?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, taobball said:

 

Im at work but do you advocate a reliever every year or is this one special?

This one is special in that there was a reliever having a historically dominant season and no starter who was particularly dominant (5th highest ERA ever by an AL leader). This is the only time I've every advocated for a RP to win the CY

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now